Dinkar Balkrushna Kedari vs Sharad Dattatray Saraf Advocate - Saraf S. G. — 100057/2015
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 02nd April 2026.
R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal
CNR: MHAH070004742015
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
100280/2015
Filing Date
26-06-2015
Registration No
100057/2015
Registration Date
03-07-2015
Court
District and Session Court , Sangamner
Judge
8-District Judge 2 and Additional Sessions Judge,Sangamner
Decision Date
02nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dinkar Balkrushna Kedari
Adv. Hase Y. B.
Respondent(s)
Sharad Dattatray Saraf Advocate - Saraf S. G.
Girish Dattatray Saraf
Narayan Balkrushna Kedari
Vimal Prabhakar Kokate
Nanda Prabhakar Kokate
Hearing History
Judge: 8-District Judge 2 and Additional Sessions Judge,Sangamner
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 18-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 06-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
The District Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, holding that his suit challenging an earlier eviction decree was unmaintainable since he had no independent tenancy rights and should have pursued his remedy through execution proceedings rather than filing a separate suit. The court found that only defendant No. 3, who actually conducted business at the property, qualified as a tenant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, and ordered the plaintiff to pay Rs. 3,000 in compensatory costs for filing a vexatious suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The District Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, holding that his suit challenging an earlier eviction decree was unmaintainable since he had no independent tenancy rights and should have pursued his remedy through execution proceedings rather than filing a separate suit. The court found that only defendant No. 3, who actually conducted business at the property, qualified as a tenant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, and ordered the plaintiff to pay Rs. 3,000 in compensatory costs for filing a vexatious suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts