KANTIBHAI RAMANBHAI BAKORBHAI RAVAL vs VIDHYABEN AMARSINH DAJIBAVA GOHIL Advocate - S.Y.CHOKIWALA — 35/2019
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,37. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 07th July 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJBH050010112019
Next Hearing
07th July 2026
Filing Number
35/2019
Filing Date
09-09-2019
Registration No
35/2019
Registration Date
09-09-2019
Court
TALUKA COURT, VAGRA
Judge
1-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KANTIBHAI RAMANBHAI BAKORBHAI RAVAL
Adv. M.J.RAJ
NAGINBHAI RAMANBHAI BAKORBHAI RAVAL
PARVATIBEN RAMANBHAI BAKORBHAI RAVAL
Respondent(s)
VIDHYABEN AMARSINH DAJIBAVA GOHIL Advocate - S.Y.CHOKIWALA
KALPESHKUMAR AMARSINH DAJIBAVA GOHIL
Adv. S.Y.CHOKIWALA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-06-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 05-06-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 18-05-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 20-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 16-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 35/2019 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction on May 4, 2023, finding they failed to establish a prima facie case for relief. The court noted discrepancies in plaintiffs' evidence (property number mismatch in panchayat records) and found their claims contradicted by a court-commissioned inspection showing the property as open land rather than a dilapidated structure. Costs follow the main suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 35/2019 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction on May 4, 2023, finding they failed to establish a prima facie case for relief. The court noted discrepancies in plaintiffs' evidence (property number mismatch in panchayat records) and found their claims contradicted by a court-commissioned inspection showing the property as open land rather than a dilapidated structure. Costs follow the main suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts