Regional Officer vs Pasha Turab Natthad Advocate - Shaikh Mujeeb M — 112/2025

Case under Limitation Act Section 5. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 18th April 2026.

Case disposed

Civil M.A. - Civil Misc. Application

CNR: MHLA010027192025

e-Filing Number

20-06-2025

Filing Number

2030/2025

Filing Date

21-Jun-2025

Registration No

112/2025

Registration Date

23-Jun-2025

Court

District and Sessions Court , Latur

Judge

5-Adhoc Dist. Judge - 2 and A.S.J. Latur

Decision Date

18-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act Section 5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Regional Officer

    Adv. Kadam Baburao G

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Pasha Turab Natthad Advocate - Shaikh Mujeeb M

  2. 2.District Collector

  3. 3.Deputy Superintendent

  4. 4.Mujib Mainoddin Natthad

    Adv. Shaikh Mujeeb M

  5. 5.Mubin Mainoddin Natthad

    Adv. Shaikh Mujeeb M

  6. 6.Matin Turbali Natthad

    Adv. Shaikh Mujeeb M

  7. 7.Salima Hanan Shaikh

    Adv. Shaikh Mujeeb M

  8. 8.Shenaj Yunus Shaikh

    Adv. Shaikh Mujeeb M

  9. 9.Jakiya Chandpasha Shikh

    Adv. Shaikh Mujeeb M

  10. 10.Dinkar Karna Kathare

  11. 11.Arefa Wahid Kureshi

  12. 12.Umren Wahid Kureshi U/g Arefa Wahid Kureshi

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case 112/2025 Summary The court allowed the Regional Officer's application to condone a 25-day delay in filing an appeal against the decision in Civil Suit No. 319/2023 (decided 23/04/2025). The judge found the delay adequately explained: the original suit was transferred to a new court where the applicant didn't receive notice, resulting in an unfavorable judgment. After learning of the decision on 12/06/2025 and accounting for summer court closure and official formalities, the actual delay was only 1-2 days. The court permitted the appeal to proceed upon payment of Rs. 500 costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Adhoc Dist. Judge - 2 and A.S.J. Latur

  4. 09-Apr-2026

    Order

    Adhoc Dist. Judge - 2 and A.S.J. Latur

  5. 27-Mar-2026

    Order

    Adhoc Dist. Judge - 2 and A.S.J. Latur

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Order

    Adhoc Dist. Judge - 2 and A.S.J. Latur

  7. 04-Mar-2026

    Order

    Adhoc Dist. Judge - 2 and A.S.J. Latur

  8. 10-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Adhoc Dist. Judge - 2 and A.S.J. Latur

  9. 29-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Adhoc Dist. Judge - 2 and A.S.J. Latur

  10. 17-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Adhoc Dist. Judge - 2 and A.S.J. Latur

  11. 12-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Adhoc Dist. Judge - 2 and A.S.J. Latur

  12. 08-Dec-2025

    Judgment

    Adhoc Dist. Judge - 2 and A.S.J. Latur

  13. 05-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Adhoc Dist. Judge - 2 and A.S.J. Latur

  14. 04-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Adhoc Dist. Judge - 2 and A.S.J. Latur

  15. 16-Sep-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  16. 16-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Adhoc Dist. Judge - 2 and A.S.J. Latur

  17. 02-Sep-2025

    W.S. and Say

    Adhoc Dist. Judge - 2 and A.S.J. Latur

  18. 05-Aug-2025

    W.S. and Say

    District Judge -3 Latur

  19. 21-Jul-2025

    W.S. and Say

    District Judge -3 Latur

  20. 07-Jul-2025

    W.S. and Say

    District Judge -3 Latur

  21. 26-Jun-2025

    W.S. and Say

    District Judge -3 Latur

  22. 23-Jun-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 21-Jun-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 112/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case 112/2025 Summary The court allowed the Regional Officer's application to condone a 25-day delay in filing an appeal against the decision in Civil Suit No. 319/2023 (decided 23/04/2025). The judge found the delay adequately explained: the original suit was transferred to a new court where the applicant didn't receive notice, resulting in an unfavorable judgment. After learning of the decision on 12/06/2025 and accounting for summer court closure and official formalities, the actual delay was only 1-2 days. The court permitted the appeal to proceed upon payment of Rs. 500 costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case