Gangubai Rajaram Ghadge vs District Collector So. Advocate - Jadhav D.V. — 15/2018
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38,5. Status: Awaiting Summons. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHST180000102018
Next Hearing
24th April 2026
Filing Number
10/2018
Filing Date
04-01-2018
Registration No
15/2018
Registration Date
04-01-2018
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Vaduj
Judge
2-Jt. Civil Judge, Sr. Dn. And Addl. C. J. M., Vaduj
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Gangubai Rajaram Ghadge
Adv. Kulkarni C.P.
Respondent(s)
District Collector So. Advocate - Jadhav D.V.
Tehsildar Office Vaduj
Vasant Vaman Ghadge
Rajendra Krishnad Phadtare
Ashok Raghunath Bhosale
Lazman Dharma Dhole
Jagannath Dagadu Ghadge
Adik Raghunath Ghadge
Jaisingh Ramchandra Dinde
Ramchandr Jagannath Ghadge
Babaso Tukaram Phadtare
Machindra Danu Sawant
Fajanan Kundalika Ghadge
Babaso Tukaram Ghadge
Ashok Dyanadev Dhole
Rajendra Shivaji Sagre
Hanmant Krishana Saluke
Subhash Ramchandr Bhagat
Sudam Ganpati Ghadge
Tanaji Baba Ghadge
Sharad Shankar Ghadge
Sampat Dnyanu Ghadge
Ashok SAkharam Ghadge
Dattatraya Dharma Dhole
Haridas Pandurang Ghadge
Sayaji Nivruthi Ghadge
Hari Parasu Dinde
Dhanaji Dattatraya Sindkar
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt. Civil Judge, Sr. Dn. And Addl. C. J. M., Vaduj
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 30-01-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 19-12-2025 | Awaiting Summons |
| 07-11-2025 | Awaiting Summons |
| 19-09-2025 | Awaiting Summons |
Interim Orders
Summary The Civil Judge, Sr.Dn. Vaduj rejected the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction on 21 March 2018. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, the balance of convenience did not favor them, and they would not suffer irreparable loss. Additionally, since the plaintiffs had already filed a revision before the SDO (an efficacious remedy available under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act), they were not entitled to an injunction. The application was dismissed with costs against the plaintiffs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Civil Judge, Sr.Dn. Vaduj rejected the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction on 21 March 2018. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, the balance of convenience did not favor them, and they would not suffer irreparable loss. Additionally, since the plaintiffs had already filed a revision before the SDO (an efficacious remedy available under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act), they were not entitled to an injunction. The application was dismissed with costs against the plaintiffs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts