Walter Agostin Parera etc. vs Agostin Maryan Parera etc. Advocate - S. S. Sorate — 1500007/2015
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 39. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO120000132015
Next Hearing
23rd June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1500170/2014
Filing Date
08-01-2015
Registration No
1500007/2015
Registration Date
08-01-2015
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Gargoti
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.M.F.C.Gargoti
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Walter Agostin Parera etc.
Adv. S. D. Bhosale
Mari Agostin Parera
Adv. Sarjerav B. Patil
Monika Fancis Lopej
Adv. S. D. Bhosale
Respondent(s)
Agostin Maryan Parera etc. Advocate - S. S. Sorate
Anton Maryan Parera
Adv. S. S. Sorate
Sayar Maryan Parera
Adv. K. T. Patil
Luij Pavlu Disilva
Adv. K. T. Patil
Rementin Benjamin Disoza
Adv. K. T. Patil
Ashwini Stani Parera
Adv. K. T. Patil
Nandkumar Dhanaji Bhutal
Narayan Chandu Chandam
Adv. Sarjerav B. Patil
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.M.F.C.Gargoti
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Defence Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 16-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 22-12-2025 | Evidence | |
| 03-11-2025 | Evidence | |
| 23-09-2025 | Defence Evidence |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY The petition filed by the plaintiff to stay Order No. 95 pending appeal period has been rejected and dismissed. The court found no sufficient legal grounds to suspend the lower court's order, as the plaintiff could not establish primary ownership of the disputed property or provide clear evidence of possession. The court noted that Defendant No. 11 acquired the property through what appears to be lawful registered documents, and granting the stay would cause irreparable harm to the defendant without adequate justification. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY The petition filed by the plaintiff to stay Order No. 95 pending appeal period has been rejected and dismissed. The court found no sufficient legal grounds to suspend the lower court's order, as the plaintiff could not establish primary ownership of the disputed property or provide clear evidence of possession. The court noted that Defendant No. 11 acquired the property through what appears to be lawful registered documents, and granting the stay would cause irreparable harm to the defendant without adequate justification. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts