Smt Deokabai Govinda Gayakwad vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR — 30/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section SEC34. Status: Ex-Parte Order. Next hearing: 30th June 2026.

Ex-Parte Order Next hearing 30-Jun-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit

CNR: MHNG130006872026

e-Filing Number

07-03-2026

Filing Number

120/2026

Filing Date

10-Mar-2026

Registration No

30/2026

Registration Date

10-Mar-2026

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Ramtek

Judge

17-Civil Judge Sr. Dn., Ramtek

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section SEC34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Smt Deokabai Govinda Gayakwad

    Adv. KELA SANTOSH CHHAGANLAL

  2. 2.Dwarki Sakaram Dodke

    Adv. KELA SANTOSH CHHAGANLAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR

  2. 2.THE TAHSILDAR

Case History

  1. 30-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Ex-Parte Order

    Civil Judge Sr. Dn., Ramtek

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Awaiting Summons

    Civil Judge Sr. Dn., Ramtek

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Ex-Parte Order

    Civil Judge Sr. Dn., Ramtek

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Summary: In Civil Suit No. 30/2026 (Deokabai vs. State of Maharashtra), the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Ramtek issued suit summons to defendants requiring them to file a written statement within 30 days and produce relevant documents. The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction, finding no urgency for ex-parte interim relief, and directed defendants to file their reply at the earliest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  6. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 10-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 30/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In Civil Suit No. 30/2026 (Deokabai vs. State of Maharashtra), the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Ramtek issued suit summons to defendants requiring them to file a written statement within 30 days and produce relevant documents. The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction, finding no urgency for ex-parte interim relief, and directed defendants to file their reply at the earliest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case