Pratipa Pratap Babar vs Rupchand Nivrutti Babar — 260/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Status: Filing of Say on Exh___Unready. Next hearing: 07th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHST160012512024
e-Filing Number
25-11-2024
Filing Number
1046/2024
Filing Date
25-Nov-2024
Registration No
260/2024
Registration Date
26-Nov-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Wai
Judge
2-IInd Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C Wai
Last updated 26-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Pratipa Pratap Babar
Adv. Vijay Jamdade
-
2.Shivangi Sunil Jadhav
Adv. Vijay Jamdade
-
3.Priya Sagar Salunkhe
Adv. Vijay Jamdade
Respondent(s)
-
1.Rupchand Nivrutti Babar
-
2.Harish Pratap Babar
-
3.Anil Vasantrao Babar
-
4.Dipak Vasantrao Babar
-
5.Nayana Prakash Sankpal
-
6.Virsing Pandurang Babar
-
7.Dhansing Nivrutti Babar
-
8.Manohar Nivrutti Babar
-
9.Mangal Satyavan Babar
-
10.Shrikant Satyavan Babar
-
11.Sachin Satyavan Babar
-
12.Pradnya Kiran Katkar
-
13.Suresh Narayan Kalbhor
-
14.Sanjay Narayan Kalbhor
Case History
-
07-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Mar-2026
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
IInd Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C Wai
-
17-Jan-2026
Steps
IInd Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C Wai
-
20-Dec-2025
Issues
IInd Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C Wai
-
05-Dec-2025
Issues
IInd Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C Wai
-
05-Nov-2025
Issues
IInd Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C Wai
-
13-Sep-2025
Issues
IInd Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C Wai
-
25-Jun-2025
Issues
IInd Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C Wai
-
02-Apr-2025
Issues
3rd Jt Cjjd And JMFC Wai
-
05-Feb-2025
Issues
3rd Jt Cjjd And JMFC Wai
-
18-Dec-2024
Order on T.I.View PDF
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction against the defendant's construction on disputed property. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as the suit property appeared to be jointly possessed by both parties—the defendant being a co-owner who purchased 1 acre in 2006. Since injunction cannot be granted against a co-owner, and the plaintiffs did not provide documentary evidence of encroachment, the application was dismissed with status quo vacated and each party bearing their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Dec-2024
Issues
3rd Jt Cjjd And JMFC Wai
-
12-Dec-2024
Order on Exh
3rd Jt Cjjd And JMFC Wai
-
06-Dec-2024
Order on Exh
3rd Jt Cjjd And JMFC Wai
-
05-Dec-2024
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
05-Dec-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
3rd Jt Cjjd And JMFC Wai
-
03-Dec-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
3rd Jt Cjjd And JMFC Wai
-
28-Nov-2024
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
28-Nov-2024
Awaiting Summons
3rd Jt Cjjd And JMFC Wai
-
26-Nov-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
25-Nov-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 260/2024
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction against the defendant's construction on disputed property. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as the suit property appeared to be jointly possessed by both parties—the defendant being a co-owner who purchased 1 acre in 2006. Since injunction cannot be granted against a co-owner, and the plaintiffs did not provide documentary evidence of encroachment, the application was dismissed with status quo vacated and each party bearing their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts