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
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
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
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 22-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 31-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 07-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts