Yusuf Sardarmiya Deshmukh vs State of Maharashtra and oths. — 32/2019
Case under Land Acquisition Act Section 18. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
L.A.R. - Land Acquisition Reference
CNR: MHLA110001932019
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
Filing Number
192/2019
Filing Date
22-03-2019
Registration No
32/2019
Registration Date
22-03-2019
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Nilanga
Judge
2-Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Yusuf Sardarmiya Deshmukh
Adv. Mane Sunil T
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra and oths.
The Executive Engineer
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 17-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 12-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 08-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 32/2019 (Yusuf v. State) The court granted Respondent No.1's application to file a written statement and set aside the ex-parte order passed against him. Although Respondent No.1 failed to appear within the prescribed time limit after being served summons on 07/11/2019, the court exercised discretion under CPC Order VIII Rule 1 (treating it as directory, not mandatory) in this rare and exceptional case. The court found that permitting the written statement would serve justice without prejudicing the claimant in this compensation enhancement petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 32/2019 (Yusuf v. State) The court granted Respondent No.1's application to file a written statement and set aside the ex-parte order passed against him. Although Respondent No.1 failed to appear within the prescribed time limit after being served summons on 07/11/2019, the court exercised discretion under CPC Order VIII Rule 1 (treating it as directory, not mandatory) in this rare and exceptional case. The court found that permitting the written statement would serve justice without prejudicing the claimant in this compensation enhancement petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts