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

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1466/2024

Filing Date

16-02-2024

Registration No

550/2024

Registration Date

16-02-2024

Court

District and Additional Sessions Court, Vita

Judge

2-Adhoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge

Decision Date

07th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 96,O41,

Petitioner(s)

Vishvanath Vithal Mali etc 1

Adv. Salunkhe Rajaram Balasaheb

Vishal Vitthal Mali

Respondent(s)

Popat Ramchandra Kasar Advocate - Phatak B.p

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Adhoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge

07-03-2026

Disposed

25-02-2026

Arguments

11-02-2026

Arguments

09-02-2026

Arguments

02-02-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

07-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Additional Sessions Court, Vita All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case