Santosh Narayan Kamble vs Kamalabai w/o Narayan Kamble — 393/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/oVIIRule1. Disposed: Uncontested--LOKADALAT on 14th March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHLA090024342025
e-Filing Number
27-06-2025
Filing Number
1025/2025
Filing Date
01-07-2025
Registration No
393/2025
Registration Date
01-07-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Udgir
Judge
1-1st Jt. Civil JudgeJ.D. J.M.F.C. Udgir
Decision Date
14th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--LOKADALAT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Santosh Narayan Kamble
Adv. PATIL DAYANAND MANOHAR
Respondent(s)
Kamalabai w/o Narayan Kamble
Hearing History
Judge: 1-1st Jt. Civil JudgeJ.D. J.M.F.C. Udgir
Disposed
Compromise
Awaiting Summons
Appearance
Lok-Nyayalaya
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Compromise |
| 23-02-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 13-01-2026 | Appearance |
| 13-12-2025 | Lok-Nyayalaya |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 393/2025 The Rashtriya Lok Nyayalay (RLN) at Udgir resolved a property dispute between Santosh Narayan Kamble (petitioner) and Kamalabai w/o Narayan Kamble (respondent) through compromise settlement. The court disposed of the suit based on the parties' agreed settlement, directing the Sub-Registrar to register the award under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and clarifying that revenue authorities may raise objections under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. The plaintiff was granted a full refund of court fees paid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 393/2025 The Rashtriya Lok Nyayalay (RLN) at Udgir resolved a property dispute between Santosh Narayan Kamble (petitioner) and Kamalabai w/o Narayan Kamble (respondent) through compromise settlement. The court disposed of the suit based on the parties' agreed settlement, directing the Sub-Registrar to register the award under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and clarifying that revenue authorities may raise objections under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. The plaintiff was granted a full refund of court fees paid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts