Hanumant Ranganath Salunkhe etc vs Chandrakant Tukaram Phartade etc 1 Advocate - Kshirsagar S.J. — 328/2025

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,37,38. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHSO160014932025

Issues

Next Hearing

08th June 2026

e-Filing Number

20-09-2025

Filing Number

435/2025

Filing Date

23-09-2025

Registration No

328/2025

Registration Date

23-09-2025

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Karmala

Judge

1-2 nd JT. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. KARMALA

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 34,37,38

Petitioner(s)

Hanumant Ranganath Salunkhe etc

Nanasaheb Ranganath Salunkhe

Adv. R S Halnor

Respondent(s)

Chandrakant Tukaram Phartade etc 1 Advocate - Kshirsagar S.J.

Dipak Chandrakant Phartade

Hearing History

Judge: 1-2 nd JT. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. KARMALA

30-05-2026

Issues

25-05-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

18-05-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

16-05-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

07-05-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

Interim Orders

30-05-2026
Order on T.I.

Summary of Case 328/2025 The court allowed the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction on 30 May 2026. The defendants were restrained from constructing a new road from the embankment of the plaintiffs' agricultural property (Gat No. 139/1) pursuant to a Tahsildar's order dated 20 March 2025, pending final disposal of the suit. The court found the plaintiffs established a prima facie case, balance of convenience favored them, and irreparable loss would result if the injunction was refused, noting that an alternative road already exists for the defendants' access to the well. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 328/2025 The court allowed the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction on 30 May 2026. The defendants were restrained from constructing a new road from the embankment of the plaintiffs' agricultural property (Gat No. 139/1) pursuant to a Tahsildar's order dated 20 March 2025, pending final disposal of the suit. The court found the plaintiffs established a prima facie case, balance of convenience favored them, and irreparable loss would result if the injunction was refused, noting that an alternative road already exists for the defendants' access to the well. 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 , Karmala All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case