Shripat Dhondu Katkar Death Thr LRs Bhagvan Shripat Shinde Aka Katkar vs Sub Div. Officer Mahad Div. Tal. Mahad Raigad Collector Alibag — 8/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 34. Status: Amended Plaint. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.
Civil M.A.
CNR: MHRG190000182025
e-Filing Number
23-01-2025
Filing Number
19/2025
Filing Date
28-Jan-2025
Registration No
8/2025
Registration Date
28-Jan-2025
Court
Court of Civil Judge S.D. Mahad
Judge
1-Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
Last updated 29-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Shripat Dhondu Katkar Death Thr LRs Bhagvan Shripat Shinde Aka Katkar
Adv. THALE RACHANA KAMALAKAR
-
2.Shripat Dhondu Katkar Dead Thr LRs Aadinath Shripat Shinde Aka Katkar
Adv. THALE RACHANA KAMALAKAR
-
3.Shripat Dhondu Katkar Dead LRs Anant Shripat Shinde Katkar
Adv. THALE RACHANA KAMALAKAR
-
4.Shripat Dhondu Katkar Dead LRs Sushama Dinesh Aarav
Adv. THALE RACHANA KAMALAKAR
-
5.Shripat Dhondu Katkar Dead LRs Sarswati Shripat Shinde Katkar
Adv. THALE RACHANA KAMALAKAR
-
6.Vitthal Dhondu Shinde Aka Katkar Dead LRs Shalini Vitthal Shinde Katkar
Adv. THALE RACHANA KAMALAKAR
-
7.Vitthal Dhondu Shinde Aka Katkar Dead LRs Sandip Vitthal Shinde Katkar
Adv. THALE RACHANA KAMALAKAR
-
8.Vitthal Dhondu Shinde Aka Katkar Death Legal Heirs Samir Vitthal Shinde Aka Katkar
Adv. THALE RACHANA KAMALAKAR
-
9.Vitthal Dhondu Shinde Aka Katkar Death Legal Heirs Sangita Sunil Davande
Adv. THALE RACHANA KAMALAKAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sub Div. Officer Mahad Div. Tal. Mahad Raigad Collector Alibag
-
2.May Executive Engineer Hetwane Canal Division
Case History
-
25-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
04-May-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Case Summary: 8/2025 Outcome: The petition was allowed. The court permitted the petitioners to file an amended petition with additional clauses within the specified timeframe. The petitioners sought to modify Section 13 of the original petition by adding a new subsection to allow monthly or quarterly disbursement of bank interest accrued on a fixed deposit, rather than a lump-sum payment. The court found the proposed amendment legally permissible and did not prejudice the respondent's position in any pending appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
04-May-2026
Amended Plaint
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
12-Mar-2026
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
05-Mar-2026
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
05-Feb-2026
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
29-Jan-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
29-Jan-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
29-Jan-2026
Order
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
15-Jan-2026
Order on Exh
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
01-Jan-2026
Order
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
18-Dec-2025
Order
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
20-Nov-2025
Order
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
30-Oct-2025
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
30-Oct-2025
Hearing Without W.S.
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
09-Oct-2025
Written Statement
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
18-Sep-2025
Written Statement
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
21-Aug-2025
Written Statement
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
07-Aug-2025
Written Statement
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
24-Jul-2025
Written Statement
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
10-Jul-2025
Written Statement
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
19-Jun-2025
Report
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
08-May-2025
Report
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
25-Mar-2025
Report
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
31-Jan-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Jan-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 8/2025
Case Summary: 8/2025 Outcome: The petition was allowed. The court permitted the petitioners to file an amended petition with additional clauses within the specified timeframe. The petitioners sought to modify Section 13 of the original petition by adding a new subsection to allow monthly or quarterly disbursement of bank interest accrued on a fixed deposit, rather than a lump-sum payment. The court found the proposed amendment legally permissible and did not prejudice the respondent's position in any pending appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts