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
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
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
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Hearing | |
| 09-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 09-02-2026 | Hearing | |
| 07-01-2026 | Hearing | |
| 21-11-2025 | Hearing |
Interim Orders
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts