RAKESHBHAI RATIBHAI PAREKH P.O.A.H. SUSHILABEN D/O DIVYESHVARBHAI CHATURBHAI W/O RATIBHAI PAREKH vs GOVINDBHAI DIVYESHBHAI MADAT Advocate - R J JHALA — 35/2022

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 38,34. Status: Plaintiff Evidence. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.

Plaintiff Evidence Next hearing 23-Jun-2026

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJAH080003652022

Filing Number

35/2022

Filing Date

07-Jul-2022

Registration No

35/2022

Registration Date

07-Jul-2022

Court

TALUKA COURT, DHANDHUKA

Judge

2-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Last updated 15-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 38,34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAKESHBHAI RATIBHAI PAREKH P.O.A.H. SUSHILABEN D/O DIVYESHVARBHAI CHATURBHAI W/O RATIBHAI PAREKH

    Adv. R B SONI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GOVINDBHAI DIVYESHBHAI MADAT Advocate - R J JHALA

  2. 2.LILABEN DIVYESHBHAI MADAT

    Adv. R J JHALA

  3. 3.PREMJIBHAI DIVYESHBHAI MADAT

    Adv. R J JHALA

  4. 4.HARIBHAI DIVYESHBHAI MADAT

    Adv. EX PARTY

  5. 5.VIRENBHAI PRAVINBHAI PATEL

    Adv. R J JHALA

  6. 6.JYOTI PRAVINBHAI PATEL

    Adv. R J JHALA

  7. 7.BINAL PRAVINBHAI PATEL

    Adv. R J JHALA

Case History

  1. 23-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 30-Jan-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 23-Dec-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 19-Nov-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  7. 06-Oct-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  8. 02-Sep-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  9. 21-Jul-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  10. 19-Jun-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  11. 22-Apr-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  12. 13-Mar-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  13. 01-Feb-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  14. 01-Jan-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  15. 27-Nov-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  16. 16-Oct-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  17. 05-Oct-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  18. 03-Sep-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  19. 25-Jul-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  20. 25-Jun-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  21. 25-Apr-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  22. 13-Mar-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  23. 01-Feb-2024

    Issues

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  24. 29-Dec-2023

    Issues

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  25. 25-Nov-2023

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The court allowed the plaintiff's application for a status-quo injunction in a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction over agricultural land (Survey No. 329, Ratanpur, Ahmedabad). The plaintiff alleged that defendants fraudulently mutated revenue records in 1996 to transfer the ancestral property solely to defendant no. 2, thereby depriving her of her legal share as a co-heir. The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case, balance of convenience favored her, and irreparable injury would result without protection, thereby directing defendants no. 2 and 5-7 to maintain status-quo (no sale, mortgage, lease, gift or any transfer) of the suit property until final disposal of the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  26. 25-Nov-2023

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  27. 14-Oct-2023

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  28. 12-Sep-2023

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  29. 08-Aug-2023

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  30. 13-Jul-2023

    For Counter Affidavit

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  31. 07-Jun-2023

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  32. 05-May-2023

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  33. 11-Apr-2023

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  34. 14-Mar-2023

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  35. 15-Feb-2023

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  36. 18-Jan-2023

    Summons - Notice

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  37. 27-Dec-2022

    Summons - Notice

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  38. 06-Dec-2022

    Summons - Notice

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  39. 05-Dec-2022

    Summons - Notice

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  40. 09-Nov-2022

    Summons - Notice

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  41. 07-Oct-2022

    Summons - Notice

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  42. 09-Sep-2022

    Summons - Notice

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  43. 12-Aug-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  44. 07-Jul-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 35/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court allowed the plaintiff's application for a status-quo injunction in a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction over agricultural land (Survey No. 329, Ratanpur, Ahmedabad). The plaintiff alleged that defendants fraudulently mutated revenue records in 1996 to transfer the ancestral property solely to defendant no. 2, thereby depriving her of her legal share as a co-heir. The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case, balance of convenience favored her, and irreparable injury would result without protection, thereby directing defendants no. 2 and 5-7 to maintain status-quo (no sale, mortgage, lease, gift or any transfer) of the suit property until final disposal of the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case