Asha Tushar Marathe vs Vikram Shamrao Patil — 43/2024

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 5. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 22nd June 2026.

R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal

CNR: MHDH010015662024

Hearing

Next Hearing

22nd June 2026

e-Filing Number

08-04-2024

Filing Number

967/2024

Filing Date

12-04-2024

Registration No

43/2024

Registration Date

12-04-2024

Court

District and Session Court ,Dhule

Judge

28-District Judge 5 and Addl. Sessions Judge Dhule

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 5
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 54
IA/1/2024 Classification : Stay of Suit Section Asha Tushar Marathe

Petitioner(s)

Asha Tushar Marathe

Adv. Thakawani S. S.

Manisha Dinesh Marathe

Adv. THAKWANI SAWAN SIRUMAL

Respondent(s)

Vikram Shamrao Patil

Vidyabai Bap Shamrao Patil Urf Vidyabai Arun Patil

Hearing History

Judge: 28-District Judge 5 and Addl. Sessions Judge Dhule

10-04-2026

Hearing

09-03-2026

Hearing

09-02-2026

Hearing

07-01-2026

Hearing

21-11-2025

Hearing

Interim Orders

06-07-2024
Order on Exhibit

Summary: The District Court of Dhule rejected the appellants' application for stay of execution of a decree dated 11.03.2024 that ordered them to surrender possession of agricultural property to the respondents. The court found that the appellants' possession was unlawful because: (1) they occupied occupancy Class-II land without competent authority permission, and (2) their unregistered agreement for sale cannot legally support possession claims. Since the appellants had not satisfied the statutory requirements for stay under CPC Order 41 Rule 5, the application was dismissed without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The District Court of Dhule rejected the appellants' application for stay of execution of a decree dated 11.03.2024 that ordered them to surrender possession of agricultural property to the respondents. The court found that the appellants' possession was unlawful because: (1) they occupied occupancy Class-II land without competent authority permission, and (2) their unregistered agreement for sale cannot legally support possession claims. Since the appellants had not satisfied the statutory requirements for stay under CPC Order 41 Rule 5, the application was dismissed without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Session Court ,Dhule All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case