Sadik Abdul Shaikh vs Mubark Daud Shaikh Advocate - Tamboli Mujahid M — 885/2019
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Status: Awaiting Summons. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO130009882019
Next Hearing
17th June 2026
Filing Number
1017/2019
Filing Date
27-09-2019
Registration No
885/2019
Registration Date
11-10-2019
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Barshi
Judge
3-3rd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and JMFC Barshi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sadik Abdul Shaikh
Adv. Edake Prashant P
Respondent(s)
Mubark Daud Shaikh Advocate - Tamboli Mujahid M
Hearing History
Judge: 3-3rd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and JMFC Barshi
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 13-02-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 22-12-2025 | Awaiting Summons |
| 07-11-2025 | Awaiting Summons |
| 23-09-2025 | Awaiting Summons |
Interim Orders
Case Summary - RCS 885/2019 The court granted the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. The plaintiff Sadik Abdul Shaikh sought to restrain defendant Mubarak Shaikh from carrying out any construction or alterations on the disputed property. The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case (as prior judgments in related suits RCS 529/2012 and 516/2012 declared plaintiff's predecessor had a 5/8th ownership share), balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, and that plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss if construction were allowed. The injunction remains in effect until final disposal of the suit or execution of the earlier decrees, whichever occurs first. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary - RCS 885/2019 The court granted the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. The plaintiff Sadik Abdul Shaikh sought to restrain defendant Mubarak Shaikh from carrying out any construction or alterations on the disputed property. The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case (as prior judgments in related suits RCS 529/2012 and 516/2012 declared plaintiff's predecessor had a 5/8th ownership share), balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, and that plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss if construction were allowed. The injunction remains in effect until final disposal of the suit or execution of the earlier decrees, whichever occurs first. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts