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
Next Hearing
24th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
43/2023
Filing Date
07-06-2023
Registration No
43/2023
Registration Date
07-06-2023
Court
TALUKA COURT, MALIA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
HANSABEN W./O. CHANDRAKANT PATHAK
Adv. V M KANABAR
ANJANABEN D./O.CHANDRAKANT PATHAK,W./O.HARSHADBHAI PUROHIT
Adv. V M KANABAR
BINDIYABEN D./O.CHANDRAKANT PATHAK, W./O. RAKESHBHAI BHATT
Adv. V M KANABAR
MEHULKUMAR CHANDRAKANT PATHAK
Adv. V M KANABAR
Respondent(s)
ASHVINBHAI VRUJLAL PANDYA Advocate - K K SUTREJA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 06-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 31-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 19-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 10-10-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts