HANSABEN W./O. CHANDRAKANT PATHAK vs ASHVINBHAI VRUJLAL PANDYA Advocate - K K SUTREJA — 43/2023
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,36. Status: Plaintiff Evidence. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJJN060009992023
Filing Number
43/2023
Filing Date
07-Jun-2023
Registration No
43/2023
Registration Date
07-Jun-2023
Court
TALUKA COURT, MALIA
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Last updated 16-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.HANSABEN W./O. CHANDRAKANT PATHAK
Adv. V M KANABAR
-
2.ANJANABEN D./O.CHANDRAKANT PATHAK,W./O.HARSHADBHAI PUROHIT
Adv. V M KANABAR
-
3.BINDIYABEN D./O.CHANDRAKANT PATHAK, W./O. RAKESHBHAI BHATT
Adv. V M KANABAR
-
4.MEHULKUMAR CHANDRAKANT PATHAK
Adv. V M KANABAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.ASHVINBHAI VRUJLAL PANDYA Advocate - K K SUTREJA
Case History
-
24-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
13-Mar-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
06-Mar-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
31-Jan-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
19-Dec-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
10-Oct-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
29-Aug-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
25-Jul-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
25-Jun-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
23-May-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Apr-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
14-Feb-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Jan-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
07-Nov-2024
OrderView PDF
Court Order Summary Case: RCS No. 43/2023 | Principal Civil Court, Maliya Hatina Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' petition for interim relief (injunction) to prevent the defendant from making alterations or demolishing a property. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, citing lack of balance of convenience in their favor and noting that the defendant's rights under the Rent Act could not be arbitrarily restrained without proper legal justification. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-Nov-2024
Documentary Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
24-Oct-2024
Order On Injuction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
18-Oct-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Oct-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Oct-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
27-Sep-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
06-Sep-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
02-Aug-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
21-Jun-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
24-May-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
12-Apr-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Feb-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
08-Dec-2023
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Nov-2023
Written Statement/Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
22-Sep-2023
Written Statement/Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
04-Aug-2023
Written Statement/Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
30-Jun-2023
Written Statement/Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
21-Jun-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Jun-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 43/2023
Court Order Summary Case: RCS No. 43/2023 | Principal Civil Court, Maliya Hatina Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' petition for interim relief (injunction) to prevent the defendant from making alterations or demolishing a property. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, citing lack of balance of convenience in their favor and noting that the defendant's rights under the Rent Act could not be arbitrarily restrained without proper legal justification. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts