Shivaji Bhau Pawar vs Dadasaheb Anna Pawar — 7/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order43Rule1. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

M.C.A. - Misc.Civil Appeal

CNR: MHST170001192026

e-Filing Number

02-02-2026

Filing Number

72/2026

Filing Date

09-Feb-2026

Registration No

7/2026

Registration Date

09-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Court, Vaduj

Judge

1-District Judge -1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Vaduj

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED

Last updated 26-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Order43Rule1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Shivaji Bhau Pawar

    Adv. Jamir Kazi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Dadasaheb Anna Pawar

  2. 2.Hanmant Anna pawar

  3. 3.Shashikant Anna Pawar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary The District Court partially allowed the defendant's appeal against the trial court's interim injunction order. The court found that while the plaintiffs failed to establish joint ownership through partition by metes and bounds, they prima facie established entitlement to joint possession of the agricultural property based on a 1951 compromise decree. Consequently, the court modified the injunction to restrain only the defendant from ousting the plaintiffs from the properties until final suit disposal, rather than granting the broader relief originally sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge -1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Vaduj

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Judgment

    District Judge -1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Vaduj

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

    District Judge -1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Vaduj

  6. 25-Feb-2026

    Notice_Unready

    District Judge -1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Vaduj

  7. 11-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 09-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 7/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The District Court partially allowed the defendant's appeal against the trial court's interim injunction order. The court found that while the plaintiffs failed to establish joint ownership through partition by metes and bounds, they prima facie established entitlement to joint possession of the agricultural property based on a 1951 compromise decree. Consequently, the court modified the injunction to restrain only the defendant from ousting the plaintiffs from the properties until final suit disposal, rather than granting the broader relief originally sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case