Sau.Parvatabai Janrao Mokase vs Suresh Nagorao Gadekar And 2 Advocate - Kadukar G.V. — 11/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section None. Status: Argument on Exh.____Ready. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHYA160003322021
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
Filing Number
25/2021
Filing Date
16-06-2021
Registration No
11/2021
Registration Date
16-06-2021
Court
Civil Judge Junior Division Babulgaon
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Babhulgaon
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sau.Parvatabai Janrao Mokase
Adv. Parode K. D.
Respondent(s)
Suresh Nagorao Gadekar And 2 Advocate - Kadukar G.V.
Sau. kalpana Suresh Gadekar
Adv. Kadukar G.V.
Secretary, G.P. Pimpari Indira Nagar Tq. Babhulgaon Distt. Yavatmal
Adv. None
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Babhulgaon
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 04-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 12-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 20-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 30-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court petition was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff failed to establish on prima facie grounds that the defendants were illegally encroaching upon and constructing on the disputed property. The court found that the defendants appeared to be constructing on their own land based on a joint survey report by an engineer, and the plaintiff had not provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove unlawful construction. Therefore, no interim/temporary injunction order was granted to stop the defendants' construction work. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court petition was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff failed to establish on prima facie grounds that the defendants were illegally encroaching upon and constructing on the disputed property. The court found that the defendants appeared to be constructing on their own land based on a joint survey report by an engineer, and the plaintiff had not provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove unlawful construction. Therefore, no interim/temporary injunction order was granted to stop the defendants' construction work. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts