Shri Deviprasadsingh Narayansingh Thakur vs Shri Akshay Vijaysingh Thakur Advocate - Khare A. R.. — 6/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 43(1). Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 04th July 2026.

M.C.A. - Misc.Civil Appeal

CNR: MHWR010004042025

Hearing

Next Hearing

04th July 2026

e-Filing Number

26-02-2025

Filing Number

215/2025

Filing Date

26-02-2025

Registration No

6/2025

Registration Date

26-02-2025

Court

District and Session Court , Wardha

Judge

7-DISTRICT JUDGE-4 AND ADDI. SESSIONS JUDGE WARDHA

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 43(1)

Petitioner(s)

Shri Deviprasadsingh Narayansingh Thakur

Adv. Raut S.P.

Respondent(s)

Shri Akshay Vijaysingh Thakur Advocate - Khare A. R..

Hearing History

Judge: 7-DISTRICT JUDGE-4 AND ADDI. SESSIONS JUDGE WARDHA

23-04-2026

Hearing

11-03-2026

Hearing

04-02-2026

Hearing

08-01-2026

Hearing

27-11-2025

Hearing

Interim Orders

27-02-2025
Order on Exhibit

Summary: The District Judge allowed the defendant's Miscellaneous Civil Appeal and stayed the execution of the Trial Court's Temporary Injunction order dated 25.02.2025. The court found that the Trial Court granted the temporary injunction without adequately considering possession, prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss—key criteria for such orders. The court determined the defendant (temple trustee) was in actual possession of the disputed land and that the trial court's reasoning on possession was sparse and insufficient. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The District Judge allowed the defendant's Miscellaneous Civil Appeal and stayed the execution of the Trial Court's Temporary Injunction order dated 25.02.2025. The court found that the Trial Court granted the temporary injunction without adequately considering possession, prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss—key criteria for such orders. The court determined the defendant (temple trustee) was in actual possession of the disputed land and that the trial court's reasoning on possession was sparse and insufficient. 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 , Wardha All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case