Shivlal Bansilal Nirban vs Vijay Vishwanath Tayade Advocate - Bharati Sham Pralhad — 100/2023
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 37. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHWS080014692023
Next Hearing
16th June 2026
Filing Number
266/2023
Filing Date
03-10-2023
Registration No
100/2023
Registration Date
03-10-2023
Court
Civil Court Junior Division,Risod
Judge
7-2nd Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C.Risod
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shivlal Bansilal Nirban
Adv. Bajad Shankar Vishwanath
Respondent(s)
Vijay Vishwanath Tayade Advocate - Bharati Sham Pralhad
Rekha Vishwanath Tayade
Hearing History
Judge: 7-2nd Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C.Risod
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 18-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 10-12-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Shivlal Bansilal Nirban v. Vijay Vishwanath Tayade Case No. 100/2023 | Court: 2nd Joint Civil Judge & JMFC, Risod Order Date: 18 July 2024 The court granted temporary injunction in favor of petitioner Shivlal Bansilal Nirban regarding a 2,000 sq.ft. land dispute in Risod, Washim. The petitioner established prima facie ownership through registered sale deeds (1988, 2004) and tax records. The court found the balance of convenience favors the petitioner and that denying relief would cause irreparable harm. The respondents are restrained from interfering with petitioner's possession of the disputed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Shivlal Bansilal Nirban v. Vijay Vishwanath Tayade Case No. 100/2023 | Court: 2nd Joint Civil Judge & JMFC, Risod Order Date: 18 July 2024 The court granted temporary injunction in favor of petitioner Shivlal Bansilal Nirban regarding a 2,000 sq.ft. land dispute in Risod, Washim. The petitioner established prima facie ownership through registered sale deeds (1988, 2004) and tax records. The court found the balance of convenience favors the petitioner and that denying relief would cause irreparable harm. The respondents are restrained from interfering with petitioner's possession of the disputed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts