Manohar Keshavrao Ganjare vs Udaysing Maniram Rathod — 44/2024

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34. Disposed: Uncontested--TRANSFERRED / MADE OVER on 25th March 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHWS070013922024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

08-07-2024

Filing Number

236/2024

Filing Date

10-07-2024

Registration No

44/2024

Registration Date

10-07-2024

Court

Civil Court Junior Division, Karanja

Judge

3-2nd Jt Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Karanja

Decision Date

25th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--TRANSFERRED / MADE OVER

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 34

Petitioner(s)

Manohar Keshavrao Ganjare

Adv. PINJARKAR DIGAMBAR KRISHNARAO

Respondent(s)

Udaysing Maniram Rathod

Hearing History

Judge: 3-2nd Jt Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Karanja

25-03-2026

Disposed

23-03-2026

Evidence

16-03-2026

Evidence

07-03-2026

Evidence

25-02-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

19-08-2024
Order on T.I.

Case Summary: Manohar v. Udaysingh (RCS 44/2024) The court granted an interim injunction in favor of petitioner Manohar Keshavrao Ganjare, restraining respondents Udaysingh Maniram Rathod and his sister from obstructing his lawful possession and cultivation of agricultural land (1H 15R) in Gat No.11, Mouza Devchandi, Washim district. The court found the petitioner had a prima facie case based on documentary evidence of ownership through family partition (2005), balance of convenience favoring the farmer-petitioner over respondents who admitted only occasional cultivation, and irreparable loss if obstruction continued until final judgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Manohar v. Udaysingh (RCS 44/2024) The court granted an interim injunction in favor of petitioner Manohar Keshavrao Ganjare, restraining respondents Udaysingh Maniram Rathod and his sister from obstructing his lawful possession and cultivation of agricultural land (1H 15R) in Gat No.11, Mouza Devchandi, Washim district. The court found the petitioner had a prima facie case based on documentary evidence of ownership through family partition (2005), balance of convenience favoring the farmer-petitioner over respondents who admitted only occasional cultivation, and irreparable loss if obstruction continued until final judgment. 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

Civil Court Junior Division, Karanja All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case