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.

M.C.A. - Misc.Civil Appeal

CNR: MHST170001192026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

02-02-2026

Filing Number

72/2026

Filing Date

09-02-2026

Registration No

7/2026

Registration Date

09-02-2026

Court

District and Session Court, Vaduj

Judge

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

Decision Date

09th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Order43Rule1

Petitioner(s)

Shivaji Bhau Pawar

Adv. Jamir Kazi

Respondent(s)

Dadasaheb Anna Pawar

Hanmant Anna pawar

Shashikant Anna Pawar

Hearing History

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

09-03-2026

Disposed

06-03-2026

Judgment

02-03-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

25-02-2026

Notice_Unready

11-02-2026

Notice_Unready

Final Orders / Judgements

09-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Session Court, Vaduj All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case