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
Next Hearing
20th June 2026
Filing Number
5/2023
Filing Date
09-01-2023
Registration No
3/2023
Registration Date
09-01-2023
Court
Civil Judge Junior Division Umarkhed
Judge
1-Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.C., Umarkhed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Baliram Khandu Suryavanshi
Adv. G. U. Kamthane
Respondent(s)
Madhav Khandu Suryavanshi and
Manjulabai Madhav Suryavanshi
Anil Madhav Suryavanshi
Sau. Jotsana Anil Suryavanshi
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Joint Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate F.C., Umarkhed
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready |
| 12-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready |
| 07-02-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready |
| 20-12-2025 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready |
| 17-11-2025 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts