Sri. Apa Laxman Kolambkar vs Sri. Vijay Sairoba Waglekar. Advocate - RAMANAND SHABHU HEGDE GALI — 12/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section UnderOrder,VII,Rule,,1and2,R/W,151. Status: JUDGEMENT. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAUK020002842020
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
Filing Number
12/2020
Filing Date
16-03-2020
Registration No
12/2020
Registration Date
16-03-2020
Court
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, KARWAR
Judge
594-ADDL. SNR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KARWAR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sri. Apa Laxman Kolambkar
Adv. R.V. BHAT
Sri. Dhyaneshwar Laxman Kolambkar.
Adv. R.V. BHAT
Smt. Tulasi Yane Milan W/o. Devidas Tamse. D/o. Laxman Kolambkar.
Adv. R.V. BHAT
Smt. Chaya D/o. Laxman Kolambkar
Adv. R.V. BHAT
Smt. Ashwini Yane Kusuma W/o. Ashok Waigankar D/o. Laxman Kolambkar.
Adv. R.V. BHAT
Sri. Manoj Ullas Tamse.
Adv. R.V. BHAT
Smt. Namita W/o. Anand Ulgekar
Adv. R.V. BHAT
Smt. Sneha W/o. Suresh Polekar
Respondent(s)
Sri. Vijay Sairoba Waglekar. Advocate - RAMANAND SHABHU HEGDE GALI
Hearing History
Judge: 594-ADDL. SNR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KARWAR
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-05-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 21-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 10-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 18-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 13-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
Interim Orders
Case 12/2020 Summary The court rejected both interim applications (IA.No.13 and IA.No.14) filed by the plaintiffs in this partition suit seeking permission to examine additional witnesses. The court found the applications were highly belated—filed at the arguments stage after multiple adjournments—and lacked substance. The plaintiffs had already examined six witnesses and adequate opportunities to present their evidence, yet claimed only recently discovering the proposed witnesses. The court determined the applications appeared designed to drag proceedings and were without proper grounds for reopening the case at such an advanced stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 12/2020 Summary The court rejected both interim applications (IA.No.13 and IA.No.14) filed by the plaintiffs in this partition suit seeking permission to examine additional witnesses. The court found the applications were highly belated—filed at the arguments stage after multiple adjournments—and lacked substance. The plaintiffs had already examined six witnesses and adequate opportunities to present their evidence, yet claimed only recently discovering the proposed witnesses. The court determined the applications appeared designed to drag proceedings and were without proper grounds for reopening the case at such an advanced stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts