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

Evidence

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

MAHARASHTRA COURT FEES ACT Section 7

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.

24-04-2026

Evidence

13-03-2026

Evidence

03-02-2026

Evidence

02-01-2026

Evidence

28-11-2025

Evidence

Interim Orders

15-12-2023
Order on Exhibit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division ,Akkalkot All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case