Dismissed¶20

Madhukar Sahebrao Deshmukh (Lr Kaveri Madhukar Deshmukh) v. State of Maharashtra, Forest Settlement Officer, Amravati and Another

Bombay HC5 Feb 2026WP/1091/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madhukar Sahebrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra and Forest Settlement Officer, Amravati; Writ Petition No. 1091 of 2026, Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench, decided 09.02.2026 by Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J. Petition against rejection of an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application in Indian Forest Act proceedings dismissed for vague pleadings and failure to demonstrate perversity; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The pleadings in the memorandum of petition were vague, with no factual aspects or legal grounds raised; the petitioner failed to demonstrate any case for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ¶16

Madhukar Sahebrao Deshmukh (Lr Kaveri Madhukar Deshmukh) vs State of Maharashtra, Forest Settlement Officer, Amravati and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 / 3 8.wp1091.2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1091 OF 2026

¶3

Madhukar Sahebrao Deshmukh

¶4

Vs.

¶5

State of Maharashtra, Forest Settlement Officer, Amravati

¶6

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Mr. Ganesh Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.C. Joshi, AGP for respondent/State.

¶8

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

¶9

DATE : 09.02.2026

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

The petitioner’s challenge is to order dated 09.12.2025 passed by respondent No.1, thereby rejecting the petitioner’s application purported to have been filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was filed in the proceedings under the Indian Forest Act.

¶12

By order dated 06.02.2026, this Court has directed the petitioner to place on record a copy of application purported to have been filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the document with respect to the proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, in which, the said application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. In response to the said order, the petitioner has not filed on record the said documents by any application, nor the documents are

¶13

Prity

¶14

2 / 3 8.wp1091.2026

¶15

placed along with any affidavit or pursis. Only loose papers are tried to be handed over to the Court, which is an application and copy of order sheet, unaccompanied with any documents showing the conduct of proceedings under the Indian Forest Act.

¶16

On perusal of the memorandum of petition as it is filed, it is clear that the pleadings are as vague, as it could be. The petitioner has not mentioned any factual aspects, neither any legal grounds are raised in support of the contentions. The petitioner has, thus, failed to demonstrate any case for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The only document placed on record along with the petition is the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the Forest Settlement Officer, Amravati, which reveals that by considering the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Authority has categorically observed that the said provision is not applicable to the said proceedings. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to how the proceedings are liable to be dismissed/rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The documents handed over today also do not contain any documents to show which proceedings are initiated and thus, the petitioner has not rendered proper assistance to the Court to understand the controversy. Arguments are tried to be advanced only on

¶17

Prity

¶18

3 / 3 8.wp1091.2026

¶19

the basis of the impugned order, which are not at all convincing.

¶20

The petitioner has failed to raise any substantial ground to demonstrate any perversity in the impugned order. Hence, the petition is not entertained and it is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶21

(Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.)

¶22

Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Prity Date: 12/02/2026 18:30:02

Madhukar Sahebrao Deshmukh (Lr Kaveri Madhukar Deshmukh) v. State of Maharashtra, Forest Settlement Officer, Amravati and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhukar Sahebrao Deshmukh (Lr Kaveri Madhukar Deshmukh) v. State of Maharashtra, Forest Settlement Officer, Amravati and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajiv Samadhan Multipurpose Society, Hirapur, Thr. President, Shivaji Samadhan Bode vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. the District Magistrate-Collector, Chandrapur

Sau. Asha Indradas Zilpe vs the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and Ors.

Laxmibai Shyamrao Sakhare vs the State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Yavatmal and Others

Gopal Zaparuzi Ambadkar vs Haribhau Tukaram Umbarkar and Others

Nagnath Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Thr. General Manager, Hingoli vs Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Thr. Presiding Officer, Nagpur

Vasantrao Naik Samaj Sudharak Mandal, Pusad, Thr. Secretary, Kausar Khan Akthar Khan and Anr. vs Presiding Officer School Tribunal, Amravati and Others