Sangita Bhairu Awaghade vs Ravindra Pandurang Giri etc 1 Advocate - Kamble Manojkumar Bhaurao — 367/2024
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38. Status: List of Witness. Next hearing: 04th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO160013942024
Next Hearing
04th July 2026
e-Filing Number
21-10-2024
Filing Number
437/2024
Filing Date
23-10-2024
Registration No
367/2024
Registration Date
23-10-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Karmala
Judge
2-JT. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. KARMALA
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sangita Bhairu Awaghade
Adv. Rokade S. A.
Respondent(s)
Ravindra Pandurang Giri etc 1 Advocate - Kamble Manojkumar Bhaurao
Dattatray Kushaba Kondalinge
Adv. Kamble Manojkumar Bhaurao
Hearing History
Judge: 2-JT. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. KARMALA
List of Witness
List of Witness
List of Witness
Issues
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-05-2026 | List of Witness |
| 13-03-2026 | List of Witness |
| 09-02-2026 | List of Witness |
| 20-01-2026 | Issues |
| 08-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 367/2024 Petitioner: Sangita Bhairu Awaghade Respondent: Ravindra Pandurang Giri and others Order Date: 20/01/2026 Outcome: Petition GRANTED. The court granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and occupation of the disputed agricultural property (Plot No. 132, measuring 0.87 acres plus 0.05 acres, total 0.92 acres) in Karmala, Solapur district, until final judgment. The court found the petitioner has a stronger legal position and that irreparable harm would result if the injunction were denied. Both parties directed to proceed with the case on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 367/2024 Petitioner: Sangita Bhairu Awaghade Respondent: Ravindra Pandurang Giri and others Order Date: 20/01/2026 Outcome: Petition GRANTED. The court granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and occupation of the disputed agricultural property (Plot No. 132, measuring 0.87 acres plus 0.05 acres, total 0.92 acres) in Karmala, Solapur district, until final judgment. The court found the petitioner has a stronger legal position and that irreparable harm would result if the injunction were denied. Both parties directed to proceed with the case on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts