Ravindra Madhaorao Dhanorkar vs Nalini Ravindra Dhanorkar Advocate - Panel Adv. Jawalekar S.S. — 5/2026
Case under Limitation Act Section 5. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 08th May 2026.
M.J.Cases - Misc. Judicial Cases
CNR: MHWR010000542026
e-Filing Number
06-01-2026
Filing Number
31/2026
Filing Date
06-01-2026
Registration No
5/2026
Registration Date
07-01-2026
Court
District and Session Court , Wardha
Judge
3-DISTRICT JUDGE-2 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, WARDHA
Decision Date
08th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ravindra Madhaorao Dhanorkar
Adv. TIBDEWAL BELA VINODKUMAR
Respondent(s)
Nalini Ravindra Dhanorkar Advocate - Panel Adv. Jawalekar S.S.
Hearing History
Judge: 3-DISTRICT JUDGE-2 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, WARDHA
Disposed
Order
Order
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-05-2026 | Order |
| 29-04-2026 | Order |
| 22-04-2026 | Hearing |
| 09-04-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The District Court of Wardha rejected the applicant's application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an interim maintenance order under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient cause for the 144-day delay, rejecting claims of brain damage and financial hardship as the applicant had demonstrated good health in subsequent legal proceedings and affidavits. The court held that no credible evidence supported the alleged impediments to timely appeal filing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The District Court of Wardha rejected the applicant's application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an interim maintenance order under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient cause for the 144-day delay, rejecting claims of brain damage and financial hardship as the applicant had demonstrated good health in subsequent legal proceedings and affidavits. The court held that no credible evidence supported the alleged impediments to timely appeal filing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts