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.

Case disposed

M.C.A. - Misc.Civil Appeal

CNR: MHWS010011852024

e-Filing Number

19-10-2024

Filing Number

713/2024

Filing Date

19-Oct-2024

Registration No

41/2024

Registration Date

22-Oct-2024

Court

District and Sessions Court, Washim

Judge

3-District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O43, Rule 5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Vidya Vijay Bharti

    Adv. B.D.Pandit

  2. 2.Vijay Parasram Bharti

    Adv. B.D.Pandit

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ab Karim Moh Hatam

  2. 2.Abdul Rafeek Abdul Munaf

  3. 3.Gajanan Gulab Puri

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    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.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    Judgment

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Judgment

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  6. 06-Mar-2026

    Judgment

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  7. 10-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  8. 31-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  9. 13-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  10. 08-Jan-2026

    Steps

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  11. 22-Dec-2025

    Steps

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  12. 09-Dec-2025

    Steps

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  13. 05-Dec-2025

    Steps

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  14. 29-Nov-2025

    Judgment

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  15. 20-Nov-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  16. 20-Nov-2025

    Judgment

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  17. 15-Nov-2025

    Order on Exh

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  18. 06-Nov-2025

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  19. 01-Nov-2025

    Steps

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  20. 16-Oct-2025

    Steps

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  21. 08-Oct-2025

    Judgment

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  22. 01-Oct-2025

    Judgment

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  23. 22-Sep-2025

    Judgment

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  24. 28-Aug-2025

    Ex-Parte Order

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  25. 12-Aug-2025

    Notice_Unready

    District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

  26. 28-Jul-2025

    Steps

    Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim

  27. 11-Jun-2025

    Steps

    Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim

  28. 29-Apr-2025

    Steps

    Ad-hoc Dj-1 Asj Washim

  29. 27-Feb-2025

    Steps

    Ad-hoc Dj-1 Asj Washim

  30. 09-Jan-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    Ad-hoc Dj-1 Asj Washim

  31. 24-Oct-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  32. 19-Oct-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 41/2024

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case