Baliram Khandu Suryavanshi vs Madhav Khandu Suryavanshi and — 3/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section cpc. Status: Filing of Say on Exh___Ready. Next hearing: 20th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHYA110001002023
Filing Number
5/2023
Filing Date
09-Jan-2023
Registration No
3/2023
Registration Date
09-Jan-2023
Court
Civil Judge Junior Division Umarkhed
Judge
1-Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
Last updated 25-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Baliram Khandu Suryavanshi
Adv. G. U. Kamthane
Respondent(s)
-
1.Madhav Khandu Suryavanshi and
-
2.Manjulabai Madhav Suryavanshi
-
3.Anil Madhav Suryavanshi
-
4.Sau. Jotsana Anil Suryavanshi
Case History
-
20-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
17-Apr-2026
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
12-Mar-2026
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
07-Feb-2026
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
20-Dec-2025
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
17-Nov-2025
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
06-Oct-2025
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
14-Aug-2025
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
11-Jul-2025
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
21-Apr-2025
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
10-Mar-2025
Dismissal Order
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
11-Feb-2025
Dismissal Order
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
07-Jan-2025
Evidence
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
09-Dec-2024
Evidence
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
07-Nov-2024
Evidence
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
23-Sep-2024
Evidence
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
06-Aug-2024
Evidence
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
29-Jun-2024
List of Witness
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
15-Apr-2024
Order on ExhibitView PDF
SUMMARY The court rejected both the plaintiff's and defendants' applications for temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC. The court found that neither party established a prima facie case, as both failed to prove possession of the disputed property with sufficient specificity and supporting evidence. Since the fundamental requirements for granting injunction—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury—were not satisfied by either party, both applications (Exh. 05 and Exh. 17) were dismissed with costs in cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-Apr-2024
Issues
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
02-Apr-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
16-Mar-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
13-Mar-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
07-Mar-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
01-Mar-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
17-Feb-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
09-Feb-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
30-Jan-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
08-Jan-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
18-Dec-2023
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
06-Dec-2023
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
08-Nov-2023
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
16-Oct-2023
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
04-Oct-2023
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
02-Sep-2023
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
04-Aug-2023
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
18-Jul-2023
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
03-Jul-2023
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
08-Jun-2023
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
21-Apr-2023
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
05-Apr-2023
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
20-Mar-2023
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
04-Mar-2023
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
14-Feb-2023
W.S. and Say
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
27-Jan-2023
W.S. and Say
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.c., Umarkhed
-
09-Jan-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Jan-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 3/2023
SUMMARY The court rejected both the plaintiff's and defendants' applications for temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC. The court found that neither party established a prima facie case, as both failed to prove possession of the disputed property with sufficient specificity and supporting evidence. Since the fundamental requirements for granting injunction—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury—were not satisfied by either party, both applications (Exh. 05 and Exh. 17) were dismissed with costs in cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts