BALAKRISHNA DEMANNA PATIL vs PARASHURAM KEDARI JAVALKAR Advocate - BHARATHASING VENKATSINGH RAJPUT — 34/2009
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U.oXXIRule10ofC.P.C. Status: FOR CLARIFICATION. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
Ex.C - Execution Cases
CNR: KAUK510000752009
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
Filing Date
06-07-2009
Registration No
34/2009
Registration Date
06-07-2009
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HALIYAL
Judge
525-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HALIYAL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BALAKRISHNA DEMANNA PATIL
Adv. LAXMAN SOMANING ARASINGERI
Respondent(s)
PARASHURAM KEDARI JAVALKAR Advocate - BHARATHASING VENKATSINGH RAJPUT
Hearing History
Judge: 525-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HALIYAL
FOR CLARIFICATION
ORDERS
ORDERS
ORDERS
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-06-2026 | FOR CLARIFICATION |
| 27-04-2026 | ORDERS |
| 21-04-2026 | ORDERS |
| 15-04-2026 | ORDERS |
| 10-04-2026 | HEARING |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 34/2009 The court rejected an application filed by third-party applicants seeking to participate in execution proceedings on land. The applicants claimed family rights to the property based on alleged oral partition, contending the decree holder obtained a fraudulent sale agreement. The court found the applicants lacked standing under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC (which only permits decree holders or property purchasers to apply) and failed to produce documentary evidence supporting their claimed rights. The application was dismissed as a collusive obstruction tactic, with the case adjourned to 25.01.2025 for further hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 34/2009 The court rejected an application filed by third-party applicants seeking to participate in execution proceedings on land. The applicants claimed family rights to the property based on alleged oral partition, contending the decree holder obtained a fraudulent sale agreement. The court found the applicants lacked standing under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC (which only permits decree holders or property purchasers to apply) and failed to produce documentary evidence supporting their claimed rights. The application was dismissed as a collusive obstruction tactic, with the case adjourned to 25.01.2025 for further hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts