Dattu Mahadev Jare and 1 vs Duryodhan Krushna Bhosale and 3 Advocate - Kedar Rajaram Ramchandra — 265/2025

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38,34,39. Status: Ex-Parte Order. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.

Ex-Parte Order Next hearing 17-Jun-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHSO200013402025

e-Filing Number

03-07-2025

Filing Number

343/2025

Filing Date

04-Jul-2025

Registration No

265/2025

Registration Date

07-Jul-2025

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Sangola

Judge

8-IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 38,34,39

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Dattu Mahadev Jare and 1

    Adv. Patil G.N.

  2. 2.Siddheshwar Mahadev Jare

    Adv. Patil G.N.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Duryodhan Krushna Bhosale and 3 Advocate - Kedar Rajaram Ramchandra

  2. 2.Sunil Shivaji Hagvane

  3. 3.Rajshree Ananda Bhosale

  4. 4.Anusaya Duryodhan Bhosale

Case History

  1. 17-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 05-May-2026

    Order on T.I.View PDF

    Case Summary: 265/2025 Petition Granted The court granted the petition filed by Dattu Mahadev Jare and Siddheshwar Mahadev Jare against Duryodhan Krushna Bhosale and three others. The petitioners sought temporary injunction to prevent respondents from destroying sugarcane crops on their land (Plot 97, Moze Khavaspurta.Sangola, Solapur) and from trespassing on their cultivated area. The court found that petitioners had direct possession of the land with standing sugarcane crops and that respondents conducted a survey (P.R. 27332/2024) without proper prior notice to petitioners, violating natural justice principles. Accordingly, the court issued a temporary order restraining respondents from harvesting the crops or interfering with petitioners' quiet possession pending final adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Ex-Parte Order

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  4. 09-Apr-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  7. 13-Feb-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  8. 21-Jan-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  9. 05-Dec-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  10. 13-Nov-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  11. 08-Oct-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  12. 26-Sep-2025

    W.S. and Say

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  13. 03-Sep-2025

    W.S. and Say

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  14. 13-Aug-2025

    W.S. and Say

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  15. 08-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  16. 04-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 265/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 265/2025 Petition Granted The court granted the petition filed by Dattu Mahadev Jare and Siddheshwar Mahadev Jare against Duryodhan Krushna Bhosale and three others. The petitioners sought temporary injunction to prevent respondents from destroying sugarcane crops on their land (Plot 97, Moze Khavaspurta.Sangola, Solapur) and from trespassing on their cultivated area. The court found that petitioners had direct possession of the land with standing sugarcane crops and that respondents conducted a survey (P.R. 27332/2024) without proper prior notice to petitioners, violating natural justice principles. Accordingly, the court issued a temporary order restraining respondents from harvesting the crops or interfering with petitioners' quiet possession pending final adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case