Smt. Shobha Chandrakant Kalloli vs Shri. Sunildatt Baburao Kalloli Advocate - Sagar A. Patil — 169/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34, 38. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 16th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO100006502022
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
413/2022
Filing Date
24-06-2022
Registration No
169/2022
Registration Date
24-06-2022
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Gadhinglaj
Judge
2-2nd Civil Judge Jr.Dn.and J.M.F.C.,Gadhinglaj
Decision Date
16th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Smt. Shobha Chandrakant Kalloli
Adv. Shantinath S. Patil
Shri. Rajaram Anappa Kallolli
Adv. Shantinath S. Patil
Smt. Basawa Shivappa Kalloli
Adv. Shantinath S. Patil
Respondent(s)
Shri. Sunildatt Baburao Kalloli Advocate - Sagar A. Patil
Smt. Sushila Baburao kalloli
Hearing History
Judge: 2-2nd Civil Judge Jr.Dn.and J.M.F.C.,Gadhinglaj
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 23-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 17-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 21-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for stay of judgment pending appeal under Order 41 Rule 5(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. The court held that since the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title by adverse possession was dismissed, no executable decree was passed, making the stay provision inapplicable as it only applies to executable decrees. Additionally, the plaintiffs failed to properly state facts regarding possession or potential loss in their application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for stay of judgment pending appeal under Order 41 Rule 5(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. The court held that since the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title by adverse possession was dismissed, no executable decree was passed, making the stay provision inapplicable as it only applies to executable decrees. Additionally, the plaintiffs failed to properly state facts regarding possession or potential loss in their application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts