Damodhar Biharilal Baheti (died) Through Legal heir Shamsundar Damodhar Baheti(Legal Heir) vs Kantilal Mohanlal Challani Advocate - MULEY NARESH MOTIRAM1. — 1300032/2008
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 21. Status: Stayed by Honble High Court. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.
Reg Dkst
CNR: MHWS040001982008
Next Hearing
16th June 2026
Filing Number
1300012/2008
Filing Date
17-01-2008
Registration No
1300032/2008
Registration Date
30-09-2008
Court
Civil Court Junior Division, Mangrulpir
Judge
1-Jt Civil JudgeJ.D.Mangrulpir
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Damodhar Biharilal Baheti (died) Through Legal heir Shamsundar Damodhar Baheti(Legal Heir)
Adv. BANG PRASHANT RAMNIWAS
Ram Damodhar Bahet, deceased(Legal Heir)
Adv. R.C.Bang2.
Rekha Wd/o Rameshwar Baheti
Adv. BANG PRASHANT RAMNIWAS2.
Abhinav Rameshwar Baheti
Narayan Damodhar Baheti
Adv. BANG PRASHANT RAMNIWAS
Rakhi Sachinkumar Soni
Adv. BANG PRASHANT RAMNIWAS
Respondent(s)
Kantilal Mohanlal Challani Advocate - MULEY NARESH MOTIRAM1.
Tarabai Wd/o Kantilal Challani
Adv. MULEY NARESH MOTIRAM1.
Mahendra Kantilal Challani 1.
Sunil Kantilal Chhallani
Adv. MULEY NARESH MOTIRAM1.
Abhaykumar Kantilal Chhallani 1.
Mahavir Kantilal Chhallani 1.
Ravindra Kantilal Chhallani
Adv. MULEY NARESH MOTIRAM
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Jt Civil JudgeJ.D.Mangrulpir
Stayed by Honble High Court
Stayed by Honble High Court
Stayed by Honble High Court
Stayed by Honble High Court
Stayed by Honble High Court
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-05-2026 | Stayed by Honble High Court |
| 10-04-2026 | Stayed by Honble High Court |
| 16-03-2026 | Stayed by Honble High Court |
| 18-02-2026 | Stayed by Honble High Court |
| 02-02-2026 | Stayed by Honble High Court |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 1300032/2008 The court rejected the judgment debtors' objection under Section 47 CPC, which sought to halt execution of a 1990 decree ordering return of gold/silver ornaments upon ₹10,000 payment. The debtors argued the underlying transaction was illegal unlicensed money-lending and that their liability under Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 Section 6(4) was limited. The court held: (1) execution courts cannot reopen decree merits after appeals concluded before the High Court; (2) Section 6(4) does not apply as this execution targets the deceased debtor's pre-attached property, not a fresh debt claim against heirs; and (3) the attachment order finalized during the original debtor's lifetime. The court ordered objection rejected with ₹1,000 costs and directed continuation of property sale proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 1300032/2008 The court rejected the judgment debtors' objection under Section 47 CPC, which sought to halt execution of a 1990 decree ordering return of gold/silver ornaments upon ₹10,000 payment. The debtors argued the underlying transaction was illegal unlicensed money-lending and that their liability under Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 Section 6(4) was limited. The court held: (1) execution courts cannot reopen decree merits after appeals concluded before the High Court; (2) Section 6(4) does not apply as this execution targets the deceased debtor's pre-attached property, not a fresh debt claim against heirs; and (3) the attachment order finalized during the original debtor's lifetime. The court ordered objection rejected with ₹1,000 costs and directed continuation of property sale proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts