Anusayabai Laxman Bondre vs Prayagbai Kailas Chhavan — 9/2024

Case under Limitation Act Section 5. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED / REJECTED AFTER FULL TRIAL / HEARING on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

Civil M.A. - Civil Misc. Application

CNR: MHWS010000862024

e-Filing Number

19-01-2024

Filing Number

59/2024

Filing Date

19-Jan-2024

Registration No

9/2024

Registration Date

23-Jan-2024

Court

District and Sessions Court, Washim

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED / REJECTED AFTER FULL TRIAL / HEARING

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act Section 5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Anusayabai Laxman Bondre

    Adv. GAIKWAD SUDHARSHAN GAJANAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Prayagbai Kailas Chhavan

  2. 2.Devanand Laxman Bondre

  3. 3.Gayabai Shantiram Bhosale

  4. 4.Yamunabai Kisanrao Kadam

  5. 5.Kamalabai Babanrao Devkar

  6. 6.Yamunabai Vishnu Bondre

  7. 7.Ankush Vishnu Bondre

  8. 8.Radhika Vishnu Bondre

  9. 9.Ganesh Vishnu Bondre

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case Summary: Civil MA No. 9/2024 Anusayabai sought condonation of delay (2513 days) to restore an appeal dismissed in default on 15/04/2017. She alleged her son Devanand misled her by claiming the appeal was pending while colluding with the opposing party. The court rejected her application, finding she failed to establish "just and sufficient cause." The court noted that Anusayabai herself actively participated in the original trial, filed written statements, and was aware of execution proceedings filed in 2022, undermining her claim of ignorance. The judgment emphasized that parties must diligently pursue their cases and that long inaction demonstrates negligence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Order

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Order

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim

  7. 26-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim

  8. 21-Feb-2026

    Reply/Say

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim

  9. 12-Feb-2026

    Reply/Say

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim

  10. 15-Jan-2026

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  11. 18-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  12. 13-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  13. 09-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  14. 14-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim

  15. 17-Jul-2025

    Hearing

    Ad-hoc Dj-1 Asj Washim

  16. 03-Jul-2025

    Hearing

    Ad-hoc Dj-1 Asj Washim

  17. 12-Jun-2025

    Hearing

    Ad-hoc Dj-1 Asj Washim

  18. 15-Apr-2025

    Hearing

    Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim

  19. 06-Mar-2025

    Hearing

    Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim

  20. 02-Jan-2025

    No W.S. Order

    Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim

  21. 09-Dec-2024

    No W.S. Order

    Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim

  22. 09-Oct-2024

    No W.S. Order

    Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim

  23. 29-Aug-2024

    Notice_Unready

    Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim

  24. 19-Jul-2024

    Notice_Unready

    Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim

  25. 02-Apr-2024

    Notice_Unready

    Ad-hoc Dj-1 Asj Washim

  26. 05-Mar-2024

    Notice_Unready

    Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim

  27. 25-Jan-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 19-Jan-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 9/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Civil MA No. 9/2024 Anusayabai sought condonation of delay (2513 days) to restore an appeal dismissed in default on 15/04/2017. She alleged her son Devanand misled her by claiming the appeal was pending while colluding with the opposing party. The court rejected her application, finding she failed to establish "just and sufficient cause." The court noted that Anusayabai herself actively participated in the original trial, filed written statements, and was aware of execution proceedings filed in 2022, undermining her claim of ignorance. The judgment emphasized that parties must diligently pursue their cases and that long inaction demonstrates negligence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case