NIRMALABEN SHANTILAL RAMAVAT vs SANDIPBHAI HASMUKHBHAI RATHOD Advocate - A B PATEL — 1/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 22nd April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJDW040002242021
Next Hearing
22nd April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1/2021
Filing Date
01-03-2021
Registration No
1/2021
Registration Date
01-03-2021
Court
TALUKA COURT, OKHAMANDAL
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
NIRMALABEN SHANTILAL RAMAVAT
Adv. R C BHAYANI
CHANDRAKANT SHANTILAL RAMAVAT
ANANDBHAI SHANTILAL RAMAVAT
JAYSHRIBEN D/O SHANTILAL RAMAVAT BHIKHUBHAI HIRADAS KUBAVAT
Respondent(s)
SANDIPBHAI HASMUKHBHAI RATHOD Advocate - A B PATEL
TEJAS HASMUKHBHAI RATHOD
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 07-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 11-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 21-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 17-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Case: R.C.S 01/2021, Application No. 05 Outcome: The plaintiff's petition (Application-5) is dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and did not adequately prove the defendants' alleged encroachment on agricultural land or obstruction of access roads. The defendants' counter-arguments regarding the absence of clear documentary evidence and jurisdictional issues were accepted, and the court declined to grant the interim reliefs sought (injunction against defendants and restoration of land/road access). Court costs are to be borne by the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Case: R.C.S 01/2021, Application No. 05 Outcome: The plaintiff's petition (Application-5) is dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and did not adequately prove the defendants' alleged encroachment on agricultural land or obstruction of access roads. The defendants' counter-arguments regarding the absence of clear documentary evidence and jurisdictional issues were accepted, and the court declined to grant the interim reliefs sought (injunction against defendants and restoration of land/road access). Court costs are to be borne by the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts