DECEASED RAHIMBHAI UMARBHAI KHALYANI HEIR OF ASHRAFBHAI RAHIMBHAI KHALYANI vs GHANSHYAMBHAI KARAMSHIBHAI TEJANI Advocate - M A JOSHI — 76/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Status: Plaintiff Evidence. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.

Plaintiff Evidence Next hearing 17-Jun-2026 this date has passed

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJBT020046172023

Filing Number

76/2023

Filing Date

16-Sep-2023

Registration No

76/2023

Registration Date

16-Sep-2023

Court

CIVIL COURT, BOTAD

Judge

4-Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

Last updated 31-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 9

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DECEASED RAHIMBHAI UMARBHAI KHALYANI HEIR OF ASHRAFBHAI RAHIMBHAI KHALYANI

    Adv. C R MEHTA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GHANSHYAMBHAI KARAMSHIBHAI TEJANI Advocate - M A JOSHI

Case History

  1. 17-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 28-Apr-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  4. 18-Feb-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  5. 20-Jan-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  6. 05-Jan-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  7. 08-Dec-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  8. 24-Nov-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  9. 13-Oct-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  10. 08-Sep-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  11. 30-Jul-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  12. 19-Jun-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  13. 07-May-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  14. 19-Apr-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  15. 27-Mar-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  16. 03-Mar-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  17. 10-Feb-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  18. 03-Feb-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  19. 10-Jan-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  20. 04-Jan-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  21. 16-Dec-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  22. 05-Dec-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  23. 11-Nov-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  24. 05-Oct-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  25. 18-Sep-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  26. 16-Aug-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  27. 07-Aug-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  28. 18-Jul-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  29. 14-Jun-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  30. 07-May-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  31. 09-Apr-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  32. 27-Mar-2024

    Order

    Case Summary: RCS 76/2023 The plaintiff (heir of Rahimbhai) sought a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with his lawful possession of a rented shop. The plaintiff claimed his late father received the shop as a tenant in 2002 at Rs. 200/month rent and has continuously occupied it for garage work. The defendant disputed this, contending no tenancy agreement existed and possession was never granted. The court rejected the injunction application, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. The plaintiff produced only electricity bills but no rent agreement, rent receipts, or documentary evidence proving the landlord-tenant relationship. The court held that without substantiating documents establishing tenancy, protection of possession cannot be granted—physical occupation alone is insufficient. All three conditions for interim injunction (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable harm) were answered in the negative. The application was dismissed with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  33. 27-Mar-2024

    Issues

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  34. 26-Mar-2024

    Order On Injuction Application

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  35. 28-Feb-2024

    Order On Injuction Application

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  36. 19-Feb-2024

    Order On Injuction Application

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  37. 28-Dec-2023

    Order On Injuction Application

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  38. 21-Dec-2023

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  39. 20-Nov-2023

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  40. 23-Oct-2023

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  41. 10-Oct-2023

    Written Statement/Reply

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  42. 25-Sep-2023

    Summons - Notice

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  43. 16-Sep-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  44. 16-Sep-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 76/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RCS 76/2023 The plaintiff (heir of Rahimbhai) sought a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with his lawful possession of a rented shop. The plaintiff claimed his late father received the shop as a tenant in 2002 at Rs. 200/month rent and has continuously occupied it for garage work. The defendant disputed this, contending no tenancy agreement existed and possession was never granted. The court rejected the injunction application, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. The plaintiff produced only electricity bills but no rent agreement, rent receipts, or documentary evidence proving the landlord-tenant relationship. The court held that without substantiating documents establishing tenancy, protection of possession cannot be granted—physical occupation alone is insufficient. All three conditions for interim injunction (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable harm) were answered in the negative. The application was dismissed with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case