Vikesh Akaram Killedar vs Dadu Vitthal Barkale and 3 others — 7/2023
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 22nd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO130000132023
Next Hearing
22nd June 2026
Filing Number
10/2023
Filing Date
09-01-2023
Registration No
7/2023
Registration Date
09-01-2023
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Kagal
Judge
10-Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vikesh Akaram Killedar
Adv. P. V. Chavan
Respondent(s)
Dadu Vitthal Barkale and 3 others
Rajendra Vitthal Barkale
Ranjeet Vitthal Barkale
Chief Office, Murgud Nagarparishad,
Hearing History
Judge: 10-Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 09-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-11-2025 | Evidence |
| 26-09-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: RCS 7/2023 - Vikesh Akaram Killedar v. Dadu Vitthal Barkale & Others The court allowed the plaintiff's interim application for temporary injunction on 16/02/2024. The plaintiff, operating a gift gallery on government property in Murgud since 2011 with municipal permission, sought restraint against the municipal council from evicting him. The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case, balance of convenience favored him, and irreparable loss would result from denial. The court noted the municipal council failed to follow statutory notice requirements under Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act despite accepting plaintiff's taxes until 2022. Defendant no. 4 was restrained from obstructing the plaintiff's peaceful possession until final suit disposal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RCS 7/2023 - Vikesh Akaram Killedar v. Dadu Vitthal Barkale & Others The court allowed the plaintiff's interim application for temporary injunction on 16/02/2024. The plaintiff, operating a gift gallery on government property in Murgud since 2011 with municipal permission, sought restraint against the municipal council from evicting him. The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case, balance of convenience favored him, and irreparable loss would result from denial. The court noted the municipal council failed to follow statutory notice requirements under Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act despite accepting plaintiff's taxes until 2022. Defendant no. 4 was restrained from obstructing the plaintiff's peaceful possession until final suit disposal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts