Nanda Mahadeo Malusare vs Sadashiv Kondiba Malusare — 113/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 18th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHST080007452016
Next Hearing
18th April 2026
Filing Number
204/2016
Filing Date
16-08-2016
Registration No
113/2016
Registration Date
16-08-2016
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Khandala
Judge
2-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Khandala.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Nanda Mahadeo Malusare
Adv. Pisal N. D.
Kirti Sachin Kadam
Adv. Methawade V.V.
Shruti@ Sonali Abhijeet Kumkar
Adv. Methawade V.V.
Respondent(s)
Sadashiv Kondiba Malusare
Shalan Nathu Kadam
Popat Kondiba Malusare
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Khandala.
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 13-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 23-01-2026 | Hearing |
| 02-01-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 20-11-2025 | Order on Exh |
Interim Orders
CASE SUMMARY In RCS No.113/2016, the court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction against defendants to restrain them from disturbing their alleged possession of ancestral properties. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss—the three essential requirements for granting temporary injunction. Since the main partition suit is pending since 2016 and the question of possession requires evidence from both parties at trial, the court deemed it inappropriate to grant the injunction at this interim stage. No order as to costs was imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY In RCS No.113/2016, the court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction against defendants to restrain them from disturbing their alleged possession of ancestral properties. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss—the three essential requirements for granting temporary injunction. Since the main partition suit is pending since 2016 and the question of possession requires evidence from both parties at trial, the court deemed it inappropriate to grant the injunction at this interim stage. No order as to costs was imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts