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
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
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
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts