Dattatray Rajaram Khabale(Legal Heir) vs Deputy Executive Engineer, MSEDCL, Sub Division Karad, Rural — 621/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Decleration. Status: Awaiting Summons. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHST050005782023
Next Hearing
23rd June 2026
Filing Number
582/2023
Filing Date
02-08-2023
Registration No
621/2023
Registration Date
02-08-2023
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Karad
Judge
6-4th Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karad
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dattatray Rajaram Khabale(Legal Heir)
Adv. Phirange Niraj Nivrutti1.
Sarojani Dattatray Khabale
Respondent(s)
Deputy Executive Engineer, MSEDCL, Sub Division Karad, Rural
Suraj Dattatray Khabale
Surendra Dattatray Khabale
Atul Ashok Palkar
Hearing History
Judge: 6-4th Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karad
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 15-12-2025 | Awaiting Summons |
| 10-10-2025 | Awaiting Summons |
| 21-08-2025 | Awaiting Summons |
| 03-07-2025 | Awaiting Summons |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's application for mandatory injunction seeking reconnection of her electricity supply. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because the property currently stands in the name of defendant No.4 (the alleged buyer), making her claimed possession questionable. Since no prima facie case was made, the court also found no balance of convenience in her favor and no irreparable loss, leading to dismissal of the application with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's application for mandatory injunction seeking reconnection of her electricity supply. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because the property currently stands in the name of defendant No.4 (the alleged buyer), making her claimed possession questionable. Since no prima facie case was made, the court also found no balance of convenience in her favor and no irreparable loss, leading to dismissal of the application with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts