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
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
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
Issues
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts