Gajanan Arjuna Somatkar vs State of Maharashtra Through Collector — 600052/2014
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section SuitForPermanentInjunction. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 03rd July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHWS020001002014
Next Hearing
03rd July 2026
Filing Number
600099/2014
Filing Date
24-02-2014
Registration No
600052/2014
Registration Date
24-02-2014
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Washim
Judge
1-Civil Judge Sr. Dn. Washim.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Gajanan Arjuna Somatkar
Adv. POPHALE SANTOSH DATTATRAYA
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra Through Collector
Block Development Officer Risod
President Zilla Parishad Washim
Adv. Gawali Ravindra Shamrao
Grup Gram Panchayat Kinhighodmod
Adv. B N Gayakwad
Magas Vargiya Samaj Vs Boudda Pancha Mandal Mirzapur(Legal Heir)
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Sr. Dn. Washim.
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 27-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 08-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 26-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary: In case RCS No.52/2014, the Joint Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Washim allowed the plaintiff Gajanan Arjuna Somatkar's application to file an original notice issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat Kini Ghodmod (Mirzapur) as evidence. The court permitted the document to be taken on record subject to its admissibility in evidence, finding that its production would not prejudice defendants 5A-5E, who retain the right to cross-examine the plaintiff on the document. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In case RCS No.52/2014, the Joint Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Washim allowed the plaintiff Gajanan Arjuna Somatkar's application to file an original notice issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat Kini Ghodmod (Mirzapur) as evidence. The court permitted the document to be taken on record subject to its admissibility in evidence, finding that its production would not prejudice defendants 5A-5E, who retain the right to cross-examine the plaintiff on the document. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts