Dinkar Dadu Jagtap deceased Muktabai Dinkar Jagtap vs Dipak Jaysing Jagtap Advocate - Mane A.J — 85/2023
Case under Limitation Act Section 5. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 23rd April 2026.
Civil M.A. - Civil Misc. Application
CNR: MHST010010022023
Next Hearing
23rd April 2026
Filing Number
523/2023
Filing Date
08-05-2023
Registration No
85/2023
Registration Date
08-05-2023
Court
District and Sessions Court , Satara
Judge
3-District Judge-2 Satara.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dinkar Dadu Jagtap deceased Muktabai Dinkar Jagtap
Adv. Wadikar N.M.
Sangita Vijay Korade
Usha Vilas Jaykar
Yashoda Sadashiv Shinde
Sunita Vikas Jamdade
Pankaj Dinkar Jagatap
Respondent(s)
Dipak Jaysing Jagtap Advocate - Mane A.J
Vijay Jaysing Jagtap
Kiran Jaysing Jagtap
Dhananjay Jaysing Jagtap
Madhuri Sandip Jagtap
Siddhesh Sandip Jagtap
Ramchandra Dadu Jagtap
Kalabai Ramchandra Jagtap
Ajay Ramchandra Jagtap
Snehal Ajay Jagtap
Vijay Ramchandra Jagtap
Jay Ramchandra Jagtap
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Judge-2 Satara.
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 06-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 25-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 21-01-2026 | Arguments |
| 10-12-2025 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Dinkar Jagatap & Ors. Vs. Dipak Jagtap & Ors | C.M.A. No. 85/2023 The application to condone the delay in filing an appeal against a 2018 partition decree was allowed. The court stayed the execution of the decree regarding delivery of actual possession to shareholders, finding that executing it without hearing the applicants would cause injustice, as their property share was included in the partition despite no relief being sought against them. The parties are directed to expedite the main application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Dinkar Jagatap & Ors. Vs. Dipak Jagtap & Ors | C.M.A. No. 85/2023 The application to condone the delay in filing an appeal against a 2018 partition decree was allowed. The court stayed the execution of the decree regarding delivery of actual possession to shareholders, finding that executing it without hearing the applicants would cause injustice, as their property share was included in the partition despite no relief being sought against them. The parties are directed to expedite the main application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts