Hanmant Shankar Shinde vs Prashant Madhukar Sutar2. — 47/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 39. Status: Awaiting Notice. Next hearing: 20th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO190002582026
Next Hearing
20th June 2026
e-Filing Number
24-02-2026
Filing Number
91/2026
Filing Date
25-02-2026
Registration No
47/2026
Registration Date
25-02-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Mohal
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. JMFC Mohol
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Hanmant Shankar Shinde
Adv. Gajare Pradeep Bhikunath
Respondent(s)
Prashant Madhukar Sutar2.
2 A) Madhukar Vitthal Sutar 2.
2B) Shashikala Madhukar Sutar 2.
2K) Vinaya Pravin Sutar 2.
2D)Aarohi Pravin Sutar 2.
2E) Shivansh Pravin Sutar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. JMFC Mohol
Awaiting Notice
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-05-2026 | Awaiting Notice |
| 25-05-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 02-05-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 24-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 18-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 47/2026 Outcome: Interim injunction (temporary restraining order) GRANTED in favour of petitioner Hanmant Shankar Shinde against respondents. The Civil Judge ordered that respondents 1-2B are permanently restrained from obstructing or hindering the petitioner's use, enjoyment, and sharing of agricultural land (plot nos. 2A-2K) or creating road obstacles. The court found prima facie case, balance of convenience favoured the petitioner, and irreparable harm would result if the injunction were denied. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 47/2026 Outcome: Interim injunction (temporary restraining order) GRANTED in favour of petitioner Hanmant Shankar Shinde against respondents. The Civil Judge ordered that respondents 1-2B are permanently restrained from obstructing or hindering the petitioner's use, enjoyment, and sharing of agricultural land (plot nos. 2A-2K) or creating road obstacles. The court found prima facie case, balance of convenience favoured the petitioner, and irreparable harm would result if the injunction were denied. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts