Rajiben Nagjibhai Jagashibhai Patel w.o Khonabhai Rashingbhai vs Hirabhai Nagjibhai Patel — 21/2023

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,36,37,. Status: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 27th April 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJBK070002712023

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

27th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

21/2023

Filing Date

10-02-2023

Registration No

21/2023

Registration Date

10-02-2023

Court

TALUKA COURT, WAV

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Acts & Sections

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 Section 34,36,37,

Petitioner(s)

Rajiben Nagjibhai Jagashibhai Patel w.o Khonabhai Rashingbhai

Adv. K K CHAUDHARY

Respondent(s)

Hirabhai Nagjibhai Patel

Romabhai Nagjibhai Patel

Adv. N V ASAL

Varjangbhai Jagshibhai Patel

Adv. A K PATEL

Maliben Jagshibhai Patel(Abated)

Dharmiben Jagshibhai Patel

Adv. A K PATEL

Mavjibhai Karnabhai Patel

Adv. A K PATEL

Patel Arjanbhai Bhonaji

Adv. N V ASAL

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

09-03-2026

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

12-01-2026

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

24-11-2025

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

30-09-2025

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

04-08-2025

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

01-03-2025
ORDER

Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's application for interim injunction restraining the defendant from alienating disputed land. The Principal Civil Judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, citing delay of 35 years in challenging a 1988 revenue entry, inconsistent statements in related suits, and the principle that "law does not help one who sleeps over their rights." Costs awarded against the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's application for interim injunction restraining the defendant from alienating disputed land. The Principal Civil Judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, citing delay of 35 years in challenging a 1988 revenue entry, inconsistent statements in related suits, and the principle that "law does not help one who sleeps over their rights." Costs awarded against the plaintiff. 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

TALUKA COURT, WAV All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case