Nandabai laxman magare vs Devidas suryabhan gund Advocate - Sabu P.S. — 15/2025

Case under Limitation Act Section 5. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 02nd May 2026.

Case disposed

Civil M.A. - Civil Misc. Application

CNR: MHAU170006962025

Filing Number

441/2025

Filing Date

17-Oct-2024

Registration No

15/2025

Registration Date

23-Oct-2024

Court

Paithan, Dist and Sessions Court

Judge

1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

Decision Date

02-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act Section 5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Nandabai laxman magare

    Adv. Gawade Y.E.

  2. 2.Laxman Ramji Magare

    Adv. Gawade Y.E.

  3. 3.Raju Laxman Magare

    Adv. Gawade Y.E.

  4. 4.Anita Yogesh Bhavar

    Adv. Gawade Y.E.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Devidas suryabhan gund Advocate - Sabu P.S.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-May-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The District Court of Paithan allowed the petitioners' application to condone a delay of 5 years, 4 months, and 26 days in filing an appeal, finding that the delay was caused by their advocate's failure to inform them of the judgment and decree. The court accepted the petitioners' explanation and held that parties cannot suffer due to advocate negligence, ordering the respondent be compensated with Rs. 5,000 in costs, after which the appeal would be registered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-May-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    Order on Exh

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  5. 08-Apr-2026

    Order on Exh

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  6. 02-Apr-2026

    Order on Exh

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  7. 23-Mar-2026

    Order on Exh

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  8. 18-Mar-2026

    Order on Exh

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  9. 17-Mar-2026

    Order on Exh

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  10. 16-Mar-2026

    Order on Exh

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  11. 12-Mar-2026

    Order on Exh

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  12. 23-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  13. 07-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  14. 06-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  15. 09-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  16. 14-Nov-2025

    Notice Ready

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  17. 30-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  18. 08-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  19. 30-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  20. 04-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  21. 28-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  22. 16-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  23. 04-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  24. 28-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  25. 07-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  26. 23-Jun-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  27. 09-May-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  28. 29-Apr-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  29. 05-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  30. 17-Oct-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 15/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The District Court of Paithan allowed the petitioners' application to condone a delay of 5 years, 4 months, and 26 days in filing an appeal, finding that the delay was caused by their advocate's failure to inform them of the judgment and decree. The court accepted the petitioners' explanation and held that parties cannot suffer due to advocate negligence, ordering the respondent be compensated with Rs. 5,000 in costs, after which the appeal would be registered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case