Arunabai Bhika Shirsath vs Chunilal Vaman Sirsath Advocate - Jadhav V. A. — 20/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 08th May 2026.
R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal
CNR: MHDH010005092023
Next Hearing
08th May 2026
e-Filing Number
31-01-2023
Filing Number
327/2023
Filing Date
01-02-2023
Registration No
20/2023
Registration Date
10-02-2023
Court
District and Session Court ,Dhule
Judge
32-Ad-hoc District Judge -1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhule
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Arunabai Bhika Shirsath
Adv. Thorath Amol S.
Kashinath Bhika Sirsath
Adv. Vyas Kalyani Badrivishal
Saligram Bhika Sirsath
Adv. Vyas Kalyani Badrivishal
Alkabai Bhika Sirsath
Adv. Vyas Kalyani Badrivishal
Dasbhau Gaman Sirsath
Adv. Vyas Kalyani Badrivishal
Respondent(s)
Chunilal Vaman Sirsath Advocate - Jadhav V. A.
Akkabai Jagan Baisane
Mankarnabai Bhimrao Mahar
Gangubai Or Venubai Bhadu Mahar
Sindhubai Hilal Mahar
State Of Maharashtra
Sub Divisional Officer
Hearing History
Judge: 32-Ad-hoc District Judge -1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhule
Arguments
Arguments
Paper Book
Payment of Paper Book Charges
Order on Exh
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 22-01-2026 | Paper Book | |
| 24-12-2025 | Payment of Paper Book Charges | |
| 21-11-2025 | Order on Exh |
Interim Orders
Summary: Regular Civil Appeal No.20 of 2023 is partly allowed. The court stayed execution of the impugned partition decree only regarding partition, separate possession, and declaration until disposal of the appeal, requiring appellants to furnish security of Rs. 1,00,000. The application for stay of the perpetual injunction restraining alienation was rejected, maintaining the status quo on property alienation to protect all parties' rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: Regular Civil Appeal No.20 of 2023 is partly allowed. The court stayed execution of the impugned partition decree only regarding partition, separate possession, and declaration until disposal of the appeal, requiring appellants to furnish security of Rs. 1,00,000. The application for stay of the perpetual injunction restraining alienation was rejected, maintaining the status quo on property alienation to protect all parties' rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts