Abdulhamid Abdulgafar Shaikh vs Heir of Late Mohammad Yunus Noormahammad, Mohammad Fesal Mohammad Yunus Advocate - D M SAIYED — 155/2023
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 Section 13. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
SMCST - SMALL CAUSE SUIT
CNR: GJAH030010282023
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
Filing Number
155/2023
Filing Date
12-07-2023
Registration No
155/2023
Registration Date
12-07-2023
Court
SMALL CAUSE COURT, AHMEDABAD
Judge
3-JUDGE, SMALL CAUSE COURT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Abdulhamid Abdulgafar Shaikh
Adv. J N AHMEDI
Abdullatif Abdulhamid Shaikh
Adv. J N AHMEDI
Farzanaben Te D/o. Abdulhamid And Wife of Mohammadfaruk Baloch
Adv. J N AHMEDI
Respondent(s)
Heir of Late Mohammad Yunus Noormahammad, Mohammad Fesal Mohammad Yunus Advocate - D M SAIYED
Hearing History
Judge: 3-JUDGE, SMALL CAUSE COURT
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 09-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 11-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 28-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 29-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary: The interim injunction application (Exh.6) in H.R.P. Suit No.155/2023 is partly allowed. The court restrained the defendant, his agents, and servants from letting, subletting, assigning, transferring, or giving on leave and license the possession of the suit premises to any third party until final disposal of the suit. The court found the plaintiffs (landlords) established a prima facie case with documentary evidence, and the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction to prevent irreparable loss, as the defendant's own statement indicated no intention to transfer the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The interim injunction application (Exh.6) in H.R.P. Suit No.155/2023 is partly allowed. The court restrained the defendant, his agents, and servants from letting, subletting, assigning, transferring, or giving on leave and license the possession of the suit premises to any third party until final disposal of the suit. The court found the plaintiffs (landlords) established a prima facie case with documentary evidence, and the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction to prevent irreparable loss, as the defendant's own statement indicated no intention to transfer the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts