Vishvanath Vithal Mali etc 1 vs Popat Ramchandra Kasar Advocate - Phatak B.p — 550/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96,O41. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 07th March 2026.
R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal
CNR: MHSN170000602024
Filing Number
1466/2024
Filing Date
16-Feb-2024
Registration No
550/2024
Registration Date
16-Feb-2024
Court
District and Additional Sessions Court, Vita
Judge
2-Adhoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
Decision Date
07-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 05-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Vishvanath Vithal Mali etc 1
Adv. Salunkhe Rajaram Balasaheb
-
2.Vishal Vitthal Mali
Respondent(s)
-
1.Popat Ramchandra Kasar Advocate - Phatak B.p
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
The Court of Ad-hoc District Judge upheld the trial court's decree for specific performance of a property sale agreement dated November 17, 2011, between the plaintiff and defendants involving agricultural land in Sangli district for Rs. 7.5 lakh. The court found that the plaintiff proved execution of the agreement, payment of earnest money (Rs. 60,000), and readiness to perform his obligations, while the defendants failed to obtain required government permissions and deliberately avoided executing the sale deed, justifying specific performance of the contract with costs against the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-Mar-2026
Disposed
Adhoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
25-Feb-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
25-Feb-2026
Arguments
Adhoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
11-Feb-2026
Arguments
Adhoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
09-Feb-2026
Arguments
Adhoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
02-Feb-2026
Arguments
Adhoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
28-Jan-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
28-Jan-2026
Arguments
Adhoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
23-Jan-2026
Arguments
Adhoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
17-Jan-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
17-Jan-2026
Arguments
Adhoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
08-Jan-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
08-Jan-2026
Arguments
Adhoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
02-Jan-2026
Arguments
Adhoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
19-Dec-2025
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
19-Dec-2025
Hearing
Adhoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
28-Nov-2025
Hearing
Adhoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
10-Oct-2025
Hearing
Adhoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
12-Sep-2025
Hearing
Adhoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
25-Aug-2025
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
25-Aug-2025
Hearing
Adhoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
25-Jul-2025
Hearing
Adhoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
21-Apr-2025
Hearing
District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
21-Feb-2025
Hearing
District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
03-Feb-2025
Hearing
District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
20-Dec-2024
Hearing
District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
18-Oct-2024
Hearing
District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
02-Sep-2024
Hearing
District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
05-Aug-2024
Hearing
District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
24-Jun-2024
Hearing
District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
03-May-2024
Hearing
District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge
-
26-Mar-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-Feb-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 550/2024
The Court of Ad-hoc District Judge upheld the trial court's decree for specific performance of a property sale agreement dated November 17, 2011, between the plaintiff and defendants involving agricultural land in Sangli district for Rs. 7.5 lakh. The court found that the plaintiff proved execution of the agreement, payment of earnest money (Rs. 60,000), and readiness to perform his obligations, while the defendants failed to obtain required government permissions and deliberately avoided executing the sale deed, justifying specific performance of the contract with costs against the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts