Ramadevi Readymade Through Proprietor Satyanarayan Rajayya Gundla vs Swami Samarth Creation Through Proprietor Sunita Vaikuntham Jadal — 324/2025

Case under Limitation Act Section 5. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 30th April 2026.

Civil M.A. - Civil Misc. Application

CNR: MHSO010037412025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

09-12-2025

Filing Number

1373/2025

Filing Date

10-12-2025

Registration No

324/2025

Registration Date

10-12-2025

Court

District and Session Court , Solapur

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

30th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act Section 5

Petitioner(s)

Ramadevi Readymade Through Proprietor Satyanarayan Rajayya Gundla

Adv. Kulkarni Y.R.

Respondent(s)

Swami Samarth Creation Through Proprietor Sunita Vaikuntham Jadal

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

30-04-2026

Disposed

22-04-2026

Arguments

31-03-2026

Arguments

13-03-2026

Arguments

07-03-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

30-04-2026
Order on Exhibit

Case Summary: Ramadevi Readymade v. Swami Samarth Creation (324/2025) The Principal District Judge, Solapur rejected Ramadevi Readymade's application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a 2012 judgment and decree. The court found no sufficient cause for the delay, rejecting the applicant's claim of being misled by former counsel, noting the applicant failed to specify the delay period and had already contested execution proceedings before approaching the court, indicating awareness of the judgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Ramadevi Readymade v. Swami Samarth Creation (324/2025) The Principal District Judge, Solapur rejected Ramadevi Readymade's application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a 2012 judgment and decree. The court found no sufficient cause for the delay, rejecting the applicant's claim of being misled by former counsel, noting the applicant failed to specify the delay period and had already contested execution proceedings before approaching the court, indicating awareness of the judgment. 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 Session Court , Solapur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case