RAJENDRABHAI SUKHLALBHAI VAGHELA vs MAHMAD RAFIK RAHIMBHAI HASMANI — 336/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 38,34. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 22nd June 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJBT030035172024

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

22nd June 2026

Filing Number

336/2024

Filing Date

15-10-2024

Registration No

336/2024

Registration Date

15-10-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, GADHADA

Judge

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

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 38,34

Petitioner(s)

RAJENDRABHAI SUKHLALBHAI VAGHELA

Adv. D P SAU

DINESHBHAI SUKHLALBHAI VAGHELA

Adv. D P SAU

JIVRAJBHAI LALJIBHAI JAMOD

Adv. D P SAU

KALUBHAI LALJIBHAI JAMOD

Adv. D P SAU

Respondent(s)

MAHMAD RAFIK RAHIMBHAI HASMANI

ANIRUDDHBHAI MANHARBHAI SHEKHVA

Adv. V K SODHATAR

Hearing History

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

28-04-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

15-04-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

01-04-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

24-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

16-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

28-01-2026
ORDER

Case Summary: Regular Civil Suit No. 336 of 2024 Outcome: Interim injunction application partly allowed. The court granted the plaintiffs' request for temporary injunction against the defendants. The court directed that defendants cannot obstruct the plaintiffs' possession of rented shops at Gadhada Tower Chowk, and ordered Defendant No. 2 to immediately unlock the common road/way attached to the shops and refrain from locking it until the suit's disposal. The court found all three legal requirements satisfied: the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of tenancy with rights to the access way (evidenced by sale deed); balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs whose business depends on road access; and denial would cause irreparable injury. No costs ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Regular Civil Suit No. 336 of 2024 Outcome: Interim injunction application partly allowed. The court granted the plaintiffs' request for temporary injunction against the defendants. The court directed that defendants cannot obstruct the plaintiffs' possession of rented shops at Gadhada Tower Chowk, and ordered Defendant No. 2 to immediately unlock the common road/way attached to the shops and refrain from locking it until the suit's disposal. The court found all three legal requirements satisfied: the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of tenancy with rights to the access way (evidenced by sale deed); balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs whose business depends on road access; and denial would cause irreparable injury. No costs ordered. 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, GADHADA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case