Asha Tushar Marathe vs Vikram Shamrao Patil — 43/2024

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

Hearing Next hearing 22-Jun-2026 this date has passed

R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal

CNR: MHDH010015662024

e-Filing Number

08-04-2024

Filing Number

967/2024

Filing Date

12-Apr-2024

Registration No

43/2024

Registration Date

12-Apr-2024

Court

District and Session Court ,Dhule

Judge

28-District Judge 5 and Addl. Sessions Judge Dhule

Last updated 13-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 5
Code of Civil Procedure Section 54

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Asha Tushar Marathe

    Adv. Thakawani S. S.

  2. 2.Manisha Dinesh Marathe

    Adv. THAKWANI SAWAN SIRUMAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Vikram Shamrao Patil

  2. 2.Vidyabai Bap Shamrao Patil Urf Vidyabai Arun Patil

Case History

  1. 22-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge 5 and Addl. Sessions Judge Dhule

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge 5 and Addl. Sessions Judge Dhule

  4. 09-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge 5 and Addl. Sessions Judge Dhule

  5. 07-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge 5 and Addl. Sessions Judge Dhule

  6. 21-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge 5 and Addl. Sessions Judge Dhule

  7. 17-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge 5 and Addl. Sessions Judge Dhule

  8. 13-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge 5 and Addl. Sessions Judge Dhule

  9. 15-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge 5 and Addl. Sessions Judge Dhule

  10. 16-Jun-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge 6 and Additional Sessions Judge Dhule

  11. 10-Mar-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge 5 and Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule

  12. 07-Feb-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge 5 and Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule

  13. 20-Dec-2024

    Payment of Paper Book Charges

    District Judge 5 and Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule

  14. 21-Nov-2024

    Payment of Paper Book Charges

    District Judge 5 and Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule

  15. 10-Oct-2024

    Payment of Paper Book Charges

    District Judge 5 and Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule

  16. 03-Aug-2024

    Payment of Paper Book Charges

    District Judge 5 and Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule

  17. 06-Jul-2024

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    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.

  18. 06-Jul-2024

    Awaiting R and P Lower Court

    District Judge 5 and Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule

  19. 29-Jun-2024

    Order on Exh

    District Judge 5 and Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule

  20. 15-Jun-2024

    Order on Exh

    District Judge 5 and Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule

  21. 10-Jun-2024

    Notice_Unready

    District Judge 5 and Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule

  22. 03-Jun-2024

    Notice_Unready

    District Judge 5 and Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule

  23. 16-May-2024

    Notice_Unready

    District Judge 5 and Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule

  24. 10-May-2024

    Notice_Unready

    District Judge 5 and Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule

  25. 12-Apr-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 12-Apr-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 43/2024

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case