LALITABEN PRAVINBHAI PATEL vs TALATI CUM MANTRI SHRI, THE SAYARA GRUP GRAM PANCHAYAT, — 3/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJAR020002592022

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

08th June 2026

Filing Number

3/2022

Filing Date

01-02-2022

Registration No

3/2022

Registration Date

01-02-2022

Court

CIVIL COURT, MODASA

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 26

Petitioner(s)

LALITABEN PRAVINBHAI PATEL

Adv. B.R.PATEL

PRAVINBHAI MULCHANDBHAI PATEL

Adv. B.R.PATEL

JAYENDRABHAI MULCHANDBHAI PATEL(Legal Heir)

Adv. B.R.PATEL3.

JASHODABEN JAYENDRABHAI PATEL

Adv. B.R.PATEL3.

RINKALBEN JYENDRABHAI PATEL

Adv. B.R.PATEL3.

PINKALBEN JAYENDRABHAI PATEL

Adv. B.R.PATEL3.

AMITKUMAR JAYENDRABHAI PATEL

Adv. B.R.PATEL

Respondent(s)

TALATI CUM MANTRI SHRI, THE SAYARA GRUP GRAM PANCHAYAT,

SUB REGISTRAR SHREE

Adv. DGP

YOGI DHARMENDRAKUMAR CHANDULAL

PRAVINBHAI ISHVARBHAI PATEL

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

29-04-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

10-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

27-02-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

17-02-2026

ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION

11-02-2026

HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION

Interim Orders

29-08-2024
ORDER
27-02-2026
ORDER
27-02-2026
ORDER

Case Summary The petition filed under the Specific Relief Act was dismissed/rejected. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish the required grounds for relief, including: (1) that this was their first actionable case; (2) that they would suffer irreparable loss if monetary compensation were unavailable; and (3) that equity favored their claim. The court also noted deficiencies in the pleading and drafting of the petition, ruling that specific relief petitions require clear and specific pleading as per Supreme Court precedent. The order was dated 27/02/2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The petition filed under the Specific Relief Act was dismissed/rejected. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish the required grounds for relief, including: (1) that this was their first actionable case; (2) that they would suffer irreparable loss if monetary compensation were unavailable; and (3) that equity favored their claim. The court also noted deficiencies in the pleading and drafting of the petition, ruling that specific relief petitions require clear and specific pleading as per Supreme Court precedent. The order was dated 27/02/2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

CIVIL COURT, MODASA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case