Sundarabai Lakshmanrao Kolhe vs Anandrao Mahadeorao Khekade 06 Advocate - Songade A.S. — 62/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 22nd June 2026.
R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal
CNR: MHWR010007992022
Next Hearing
22nd June 2026
Filing Number
494/2022
Filing Date
13-04-2022
Registration No
62/2022
Registration Date
16-04-2022
Court
District and Session Court , Wardha
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE WARDHA
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sundarabai Lakshmanrao Kolhe
Adv. Raut S.P.
Respondent(s)
Anandrao Mahadeorao Khekade 06 Advocate - Songade A.S.
Champatrao Mahadeorao Khekade
Dharmaji Mahadeorao Khekade
Shriram Daultrao Bhoyar
Lekhraj Daulatrao Bhoyar
Ajay Daulatrao Bhoyar
Kantaram Ganpatrao Arekar
Adv. Songade AS
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE WARDHA
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Hearing |
| 04-04-2026 | Hearing |
| 11-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 04-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 08-01-2026 | Hearing |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Sundarabai Kolhe v. Anandrao Khekade (RCA No. 62/2022) Outcome: Application Rejected The Principal District Judge, Wardha rejected the appellant's application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain respondents from dispossessing her from agricultural field survey No.97. The court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of possession, as she admitted not cultivating the land herself and her son (who actually cultivates it) is not a party to the proceedings. The court also determined that the balance of convenience does not favor the appellant and she would not suffer irreparable injury, thereby denying the temporary injunction relief sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Sundarabai Kolhe v. Anandrao Khekade (RCA No. 62/2022) Outcome: Application Rejected The Principal District Judge, Wardha rejected the appellant's application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain respondents from dispossessing her from agricultural field survey No.97. The court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of possession, as she admitted not cultivating the land herself and her son (who actually cultivates it) is not a party to the proceedings. The court also determined that the balance of convenience does not favor the appellant and she would not suffer irreparable injury, thereby denying the temporary injunction relief sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts