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
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
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
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Hearing |
| 11-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 04-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 08-01-2026 | Hearing |
| 27-11-2025 | Hearing |
Interim Orders
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.
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
Explore other courts