Bajirao Vitthal Kasurde other5 vs Sunil Tukaram Kasurde Advocate - Dakve P B — 800104/2012
Status: Order. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHST110002412012
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
800104/2012
Filing Date
23-10-2012
Registration No
800104/2012
Registration Date
23-10-2012
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Medha
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C. Medha
Petitioner(s)
Bajirao Vitthal Kasurde other5
Adv. Pawar G.L.
Sulabai Shantaram Parte
Anusaya Yashawant Jawal(Legal Heir) 3.
Lakshmi Namdev Sapkal 3.
Jayashri Lakshman Ombale 3.
Chaya Shankar Aathve 3.
Vijaya Vitthal Bhange
Janabai Ganpat Bhange
Girjabai Shankar Sapkal
Rukmini Bharat Pawar
Respondent(s)
Sunil Tukaram Kasurde Advocate - Dakve P B
Tukaram Vitthal Kasurde(Legal Heir)
Vijay Babaji Sapkal
Shankar Maruti More
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C. Medha
Order
Order
Order
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Order |
| 13-02-2026 | Order |
| 09-01-2026 | Order |
| 05-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 01-11-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Order Summary Case No.: Nishani Kramank 5 & 43 / Niyamadar Dikra 104/2012 Court: Civil Court, Medha (Maharashtra) Date of Order: 30.01.2014 --- Outcome The petition for interim injunction (stay order) is GRANTED. The court ordered that Defendant No. 2 shall not alienate or create any burden on the disputed properties, and Defendants 1, 3, and 4 shall not obstruct the plaintiff's peaceful possession of the suit property until final judgment in the partition case. Additionally, the defendants are directed to pay the plaintiff the costs of the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Order Summary Case No.: Nishani Kramank 5 & 43 / Niyamadar Dikra 104/2012 Court: Civil Court, Medha (Maharashtra) Date of Order: 30.01.2014 --- Outcome The petition for interim injunction (stay order) is GRANTED. The court ordered that Defendant No. 2 shall not alienate or create any burden on the disputed properties, and Defendants 1, 3, and 4 shall not obstruct the plaintiff's peaceful possession of the suit property until final judgment in the partition case. Additionally, the defendants are directed to pay the plaintiff the costs of the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts