Ishwar Rameshwar Dendule vs State Of Maharashtra Through its Collector Washim Advocate - GIMEKAR SAHEBRAO KHANDUJI — 115/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 02. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHWS110013132025

Argument on Exh.____Unready

Next Hearing

18th June 2026

Filing Number

1212/2025

Filing Date

06-02-2021

Registration No

115/2025

Registration Date

06-02-2021

Court

Civil Judge Senior Division, Karanja

Judge

1-Civil Judge Senior Division

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 02

Petitioner(s)

Ishwar Rameshwar Dendule

Adv. S.Y.Kashid

Respondent(s)

State Of Maharashtra Through its Collector Washim Advocate - GIMEKAR SAHEBRAO KHANDUJI

Tahsildar Karanja Karanja

Adv. GANGAWANE GOVARDHAN DNYANDEO

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division

30-04-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

15-04-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

25-03-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

16-03-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

05-03-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

Interim Orders

24-12-2025
Order on Exhibit

Case Summary: Ishwar Rameshwar Dendule v. State of Maharashtra Outcome: The defendant's application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was rejected. The civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging a Tahsildar's order regarding unauthorized conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use is maintainable and will proceed. Key Points: The court found the plaintiff stated a valid cause of action in the plaint and held that the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit despite arguments that it was barred under the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act and Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, as the plaintiff seeks reliefs (declaration and injunction) that only civil courts can grant, not revenue authorities. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Ishwar Rameshwar Dendule v. State of Maharashtra Outcome: The defendant's application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was rejected. The civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging a Tahsildar's order regarding unauthorized conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use is maintainable and will proceed. Key Points: The court found the plaintiff stated a valid cause of action in the plaint and held that the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit despite arguments that it was barred under the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act and Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, as the plaintiff seeks reliefs (declaration and injunction) that only civil courts can grant, not revenue authorities. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Judge Senior Division, Karanja All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case