Vidya Vijay Bharti vs Ab Karim Moh Hatam — 41/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O43, Rule 5. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 01st April 2026.

M.C.A. - Misc.Civil Appeal

CNR: MHWS010011852024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

19-10-2024

Filing Number

713/2024

Filing Date

19-10-2024

Registration No

41/2024

Registration Date

22-10-2024

Court

District and Sessions Court, Washim

Judge

3-District Judge 2 and ASJ, Washim

Decision Date

01st April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section O43, Rule 5

Petitioner(s)

Vidya Vijay Bharti

Adv. B.D.Pandit

Vijay Parasram Bharti

Adv. B.D.Pandit

Respondent(s)

Ab Karim Moh Hatam

Abdul Rafeek Abdul Munaf

Gajanan Gulab Puri

Hearing History

Judge: 3-District Judge 2 and ASJ, Washim

01-04-2026

Disposed

30-03-2026

Judgment

16-03-2026

Judgment

06-03-2026

Judgment

10-02-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

01-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

Case Summary: Vidya Vijay Bharti v. Ab Karim Moh Hatam (41/2024) The District Judge partially allowed the appeal and granted the temporary injunction application that the lower court had rejected. The plaintiffs sold agricultural land for Rs. 24.68 lakh with Rs. 6 lakh paid upfront and balance via cheques; when cheques were dishonored with "stop payment," they sought to cancel the sale deed. The appellate court found plaintiffs established a prima facie case and balance of convenience favored them, restraining defendants from alienating 0.61R of the suit property until final disposal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Vidya Vijay Bharti v. Ab Karim Moh Hatam (41/2024) The District Judge partially allowed the appeal and granted the temporary injunction application that the lower court had rejected. The plaintiffs sold agricultural land for Rs. 24.68 lakh with Rs. 6 lakh paid upfront and balance via cheques; when cheques were dishonored with "stop payment," they sought to cancel the sale deed. The appellate court found plaintiffs established a prima facie case and balance of convenience favored them, restraining defendants from alienating 0.61R of the suit property until final disposal. 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 Sessions Court, Washim All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case