Shakuntalabi Hanumandas Oza and 01 vs Pranav Nitin Rathi and — 96/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 02nd July 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHWS040021512022
Next Hearing
02nd July 2026
Filing Number
188/2022
Filing Date
27-12-2022
Registration No
96/2022
Registration Date
27-12-2022
Court
Civil Court Junior Division, Mangrulpir
Judge
2-2nd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Mangrulpir
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shakuntalabi Hanumandas Oza and 01
Adv. BELOKAR VAIBHAV ARUNRAO
Ashish Hanumandas Oza
Respondent(s)
Pranav Nitin Rathi and
Shri. Nitin Dwarkadas Rathi
Hearing History
Judge: 2-2nd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Mangrulpir
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-05-2026 | Hearing |
| 20-04-2026 | Hearing |
| 16-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 18-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 17-01-2026 | Hearing |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Shakuntalabi Hanumandas Oza v. Pranav Nitin Rathi (RCS 96/2022) The court allowed the plaintiffs' temporary injunction application (dated 10.01.2023). Plaintiffs, who operate a jewelry shop on rented premises in a complex basement under an oral agreement since 2011, established a prima facie case of tenancy and continuous possession evidenced by 16 rent receipts and electricity bills. The court restrained defendants from evicting plaintiffs or disturbing access ways to the property until final case disposal, finding balance of convenience favored plaintiffs and irreparable loss would result without injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Shakuntalabi Hanumandas Oza v. Pranav Nitin Rathi (RCS 96/2022) The court allowed the plaintiffs' temporary injunction application (dated 10.01.2023). Plaintiffs, who operate a jewelry shop on rented premises in a complex basement under an oral agreement since 2011, established a prima facie case of tenancy and continuous possession evidenced by 16 rent receipts and electricity bills. The court restrained defendants from evicting plaintiffs or disturbing access ways to the property until final case disposal, finding balance of convenience favored plaintiffs and irreparable loss would result without injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts