Quick Summary: In a legal fight from Satara, Snehankita and Pankaj Pawar faced off against Shirkant Todkar over property rights. The Bombay High Court's decision on November 24, 2025, brought some clarity to the case.
The case began with Snehankita and Pankaj Pawar, both business people from Satara, filing a request against Shirkant Todkar. They wanted a permanent order to stop anyone else from having an interest in their property.
On September 2, 2021, the Civil Judge in Satara allowed the Pawars to skip the usual requirement to give a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which was a small win for them. This meant they could proceed without the usual bureaucratic delays.
Things changed on October 4, 2021. The court turned down the Pawars' request for temporary help, meaning their request for a temporary order was denied. The judge also canceled their earlier permission to skip the notice, asking them to follow the standard notice requirements again.
"The petitioners failed to make out a case for grant of interim relief," noted the judge.
Their lawyer, Mr. Manmath Athalye, argued that once they were allowed to skip the notice under Section 80, it shouldn’t be taken back just because a temporary order was denied. He mentioned previous cases to support his argument.
Judge S. G. Chapalgaonkar of the Bombay High Court stepped in on November 24, 2025. He canceled the order that required the return of the complaint for following Section 80, but left the denial of the temporary order as it was.
While the court sided with the Pawars on the notice issue, the fight over the temporary order continues. The case highlights the complexities of legal procedures and how they can impact property disputes.
