Shantaram Maruti Thorat vs The State Government Thr Collector Satara — 31/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 28th March 2026.

Argument on Exh.____Unready Next hearing 28-Mar-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit

CNR: MHST200000442026

e-Filing Number

31-01-2026

Filing Number

96/2026

Filing Date

03-Feb-2026

Registration No

31/2026

Registration Date

03-Feb-2026

Court

Civil Court Senior Division, Wai

Judge

1-Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wai

Last updated 26-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Shantaram Maruti Thorat

    Adv. Madhuri Gopinath Suryawanshi

  2. 2.Vimal Dattatray Thorat

    Adv. Madhuri Gopinath Suryawanshi

  3. 3.Girish Dattatray Thorat

    Adv. Madhuri Gopinath Suryawanshi

  4. 4.Sarika Sharad Pawar

    Adv. Madhuri Gopinath Suryawanshi

  5. 5.Swati Ravindra Pawar

    Adv. Madhuri Gopinath Suryawanshi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State Government Thr Collector Satara

  2. 2.Gat Yektrikaran Adhikari

  3. 3.Jilha Punrvasan Adhikari

  4. 4.Dattatray Gopalrao Gadhave

  5. 5.Prakash Gopalrao Gadhave

  6. 6.Prasad Rajendra Gadhave

  7. 7.Kusum Sarjerao Dhamal

Case History

  1. 28-Mar-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wai

  3. 20-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wai

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Summary: The court rejected Defendant No.4's application seeking dismissal of the suit on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The court held that at the preliminary stage, it cannot be concluded that impleading government authorities (District Collector, Consolidation Officer, and District Rehabilitation Officer) as defendants is wholly unnecessary or fraudulent, especially since the dispute involves challenges to consolidation records and revenue maps prepared by these authorities. The jurisdiction objection is kept open to be reconsidered at an appropriate stage during trial after evidence is presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wai

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Order on Exh

    Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wai

  7. 06-Mar-2026

    Order on Exh

    Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wai

  8. 23-Feb-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wai

  9. 21-Feb-2026

    W.S. and Say

    Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wai

  10. 16-Feb-2026

    W.S. and Say

    Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wai

  11. 13-Feb-2026

    W.S. and Say

    Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wai

  12. 09-Feb-2026

    W.S. and Say

    Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wai

  13. 06-Feb-2026

    W.S. and Say

    Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wai

  14. 03-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  15. 03-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 31/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court rejected Defendant No.4's application seeking dismissal of the suit on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The court held that at the preliminary stage, it cannot be concluded that impleading government authorities (District Collector, Consolidation Officer, and District Rehabilitation Officer) as defendants is wholly unnecessary or fraudulent, especially since the dispute involves challenges to consolidation records and revenue maps prepared by these authorities. The jurisdiction objection is kept open to be reconsidered at an appropriate stage during trial after evidence is presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case