Ajit Pandurang Kesarkar vs Shantabai Bhairu Kamble Advocate - S. B. Shinde — 10/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96,o 41 r 1. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 20th June 2026.
R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal
CNR: MHKO080002892022
Next Hearing
20th June 2026
Filing Number
190/2022
Filing Date
05-05-2022
Registration No
10/2022
Registration Date
05-05-2022
Court
Add District Court , Gadhinglaj
Judge
1-District Judge-1 Addl. Sessions Judge Gadhinglaj
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ajit Pandurang Kesarkar
Adv. S. D. Dhanawade
Respondent(s)
Shantabai Bhairu Kamble Advocate - S. B. Shinde
Gajanan Bhairu Kamble
Dayanand Bhairu Kamble
The Chief Officer through Gadhinglaj Muncipal council Gadhinglaj
The Enginner Construction Department through Gadhinglaj Muncipal Council Gadhinglaj
State of Mahashatra Through Collector Office Kolhapur
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge-1 Addl. Sessions Judge Gadhinglaj
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 18-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 09-01-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-12-2025 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Regular Civil Appeal No. 10/2022 Outcome: The application to stay proceedings is dismissed. Ajit Pandurang Kesarkar sought to stay his appeal pending a Court Commissioner's report from a related civil suit, arguing the report would help establish encroachment on the property. The District Judge rejected this, finding the two suits involved different properties, different respondents, and different causes of action. The court noted the appellant had ample opportunity to present evidence during trial and failed to file the proper procedural application (Order 41, Rule 27 CPC) for additional evidence. Merely awaiting a Court Commissioner's report does not justify staying the appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Regular Civil Appeal No. 10/2022 Outcome: The application to stay proceedings is dismissed. Ajit Pandurang Kesarkar sought to stay his appeal pending a Court Commissioner's report from a related civil suit, arguing the report would help establish encroachment on the property. The District Judge rejected this, finding the two suits involved different properties, different respondents, and different causes of action. The court noted the appellant had ample opportunity to present evidence during trial and failed to file the proper procedural application (Order 41, Rule 27 CPC) for additional evidence. Merely awaiting a Court Commissioner's report does not justify staying the appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts