Govind S/o Laxman vs The Tahasildar Sedam — 699/2025

Case under 13 Class 3 Birth and Death Reg Act Section 13(3). Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED /REJECTED OTHERWISE on 07th March 2026.

Case disposed

Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES

CNR: KAKB720011742025

e-Filing Number

01-03-2025

Filing Number

699/2025

Filing Date

10-Mar-2025

Registration No

699/2025

Registration Date

10-Mar-2025

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SEDAM

Judge

329-CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. JMFC,Sedam

Decision Date

07-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED /REJECTED OTHERWISE

Last updated 07-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

13 Class 3 Birth and Death Reg Act Section 13(3)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Govind S/o Laxman

    Adv. Vishwanath rathod

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Tahasildar Sedam

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    In Criminal Misc. 699/2025, the Chief Judge & JMFC, Sedam dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. The petitioner and their counsel were absent when the case was called, and despite sufficient time already being granted, no valid ground for adjournment was presented, leading to dismissal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. JMFC,Sedam

  4. 03-Jan-2026

    Evidence-Criminal

    CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. JMFC,Sedam

  5. 22-Nov-2025

    Evidence-Criminal

    CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. JMFC,Sedam

  6. 04-Oct-2025

    Evidence-Criminal

    CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. JMFC,Sedam

  7. 07-Aug-2025

    Evidence-Criminal

    CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. JMFC,Sedam

  8. 03-Jul-2025

    Evidence-Criminal

    CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. JMFC,Sedam

  9. 19-Apr-2025

    First Hearing

    CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. JMFC,Sedam

  10. 11-Mar-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  11. 10-Mar-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 699/2025

casestatus.in Summary

In Criminal Misc. 699/2025, the Chief Judge & JMFC, Sedam dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. The petitioner and their counsel were absent when the case was called, and despite sufficient time already being granted, no valid ground for adjournment was presented, leading to dismissal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case