Gorakh Tatyaba Kamale(Legal Heir) vs Bhausaheb Babasaheb Chavan Advocate - Barsawade P.K — 107/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O39 rule5. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 13th March 2026.

M.C.A. - Misc.Civil Appeal

CNR: MHST010028312025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

21-11-2025

Filing Number

2057/2025

Filing Date

21-11-2025

Registration No

107/2025

Registration Date

24-11-2025

Court

District and Sessions Court , Satara

Judge

5-Ad-hoc District Judge -1 Satara

Decision Date

13th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O39 rule5

Petitioner(s)

Gorakh Tatyaba Kamale(Legal Heir)

Adv. Bhutkar A.D.1.

Sharad Gorakh Kambale

Adv. Amol bhutkar1.

Sandip Ghorakh Kambale

Adv. Amol bhutkar1.

Sandesh Ghorakh Kambale

Adv. Amol bhutkar1.

Deepak Ghorakh Kambale

Adv. Amol bhutkar1.

Ujwala Hindurao More

Adv. Amol bhutkar

Respondent(s)

Bhausaheb Babasaheb Chavan Advocate - Barsawade P.K

Hearing History

Judge: 5-Ad-hoc District Judge -1 Satara

13-03-2026

Disposed

06-03-2026

Arguments

02-03-2026

Arguments

21-02-2026

Arguments

20-02-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

13-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The Ad-hoc District Judge dismissed the appellants' appeal against the rejection of their temporary injunction application. The court held that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of ownership over the disputed 114.90 sq meter agricultural land (City Survey No. 732) in Satara, as the defendants' names were validly mutated in revenue records pursuant to a 2021 compromise decree. The court further ruled that an independent suit to challenge a compromise decree is barred under Order XXIII Rule 3-A of the CPC, and without proof of possession or a maintainable suit, interim relief cannot be granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Ad-hoc District Judge dismissed the appellants' appeal against the rejection of their temporary injunction application. The court held that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of ownership over the disputed 114.90 sq meter agricultural land (City Survey No. 732) in Satara, as the defendants' names were validly mutated in revenue records pursuant to a 2021 compromise decree. The court further ruled that an independent suit to challenge a compromise decree is barred under Order XXIII Rule 3-A of the CPC, and without proof of possession or a maintainable suit, interim relief cannot be granted. 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

District and Sessions Court , Satara All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case