Satlingappa Babu Paramshetti vs Shrimant Gurushant Paramshetti Advocate - Birajdar Iranna Prakash — 36/2023
Case under Maharashtra Court Fees Act Section 7. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO150008992023
Next Hearing
19th June 2026
Filing Number
141/2023
Filing Date
26-04-2023
Registration No
36/2023
Registration Date
26-04-2023
Court
Civil Court Junior Division ,Akkalkot
Judge
2-CJJD and JMFC Akkalkot.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Satlingappa Babu Paramshetti
Adv. Mulla Y. M
Respondent(s)
Shrimant Gurushant Paramshetti Advocate - Birajdar Iranna Prakash
Shrimant Gurushant Paramshetti
Hearing History
Judge: 2-CJJD and JMFC Akkalkot.
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 03-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 02-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 28-11-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
CASE SUMMARY: R.C.S. No. 36/2023 The Civil Judge allowed the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction on 15.12.2023. The court found that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of ownership and peaceful possession of two plots through registered sale-deeds (1991 and 1992) and revenue records. The defendant's claim that he purchased the plots on their behalf lacked documentary support. The court restrained the defendant and anyone claiming through him from obstructing the plaintiffs' possession of the plots until final suit disposal, finding balance of convenience favored plaintiffs and they would suffer irreparable loss without the injunction. Costs awarded in cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY: R.C.S. No. 36/2023 The Civil Judge allowed the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction on 15.12.2023. The court found that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of ownership and peaceful possession of two plots through registered sale-deeds (1991 and 1992) and revenue records. The defendant's claim that he purchased the plots on their behalf lacked documentary support. The court restrained the defendant and anyone claiming through him from obstructing the plaintiffs' possession of the plots until final suit disposal, finding balance of convenience favored plaintiffs and they would suffer irreparable loss without the injunction. Costs awarded in cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts