ANIL NIMBA PATIL AND ANOTHER PATIL PRAKASHSING B. vs JAYSHREE GANPAT PATIL AND ANOTHER — CA/7908/2022

Case under C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 227. Disposed: --DISPOSED OFF on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM030093582020

Filing Number

CA/7420/2020

Filing Date

25-Feb-2020

Registration No

CA/7908/2022

Registration Date

30-May-2022

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay S. Waghwase

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay S. Waghwase

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 26-May-2026

Acts & Sections

C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANIL NIMBA PATIL AND ANOTHER PATIL PRAKASHSING B.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JAYSHREE GANPAT PATIL AND ANOTHER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay S. WaghwaseView PDF

    The Aurangabad High Court rejected the applicants' plea to condone 849 days of delay in filing an application for restoration of their dismissed writ petition. The court found no sufficient explanation for the delay and noted that despite obtaining interim relief initially, the applicants failed to take effective steps to serve the respondent for over a decade, thereby rejecting the restoration application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    —

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay S. Waghwase

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Urgent Orders (Civil)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay S. Waghwase

  5. 04-Oct-2021

    Objections Not Removed (Third Time)

    Registrar

  6. 20-Sep-2021

    Objections Not Removed (Second Time)

    Registrar

  7. 03-Mar-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 25-Feb-2020

    Case filed

    Registration No. CA/7908/2022

casestatus.in Summary

The Aurangabad High Court rejected the applicants' plea to condone 849 days of delay in filing an application for restoration of their dismissed writ petition. The court found no sufficient explanation for the delay and noted that despite obtaining interim relief initially, the applicants failed to take effective steps to serve the respondent for over a decade, thereby rejecting the restoration application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case