SAPNABEN RAJENDRABHAI PANJABI vs AASHISH VIVEKANAND WAGHVANI Advocate - K C PATEL — 148/2023

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34. Status: Plaintiff Evidence. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.

Plaintiff Evidence Next hearing 18-Jun-2026

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJKH020044432023

Filing Number

148/2023

Filing Date

03-Aug-2023

Registration No

148/2023

Registration Date

03-Aug-2023

Court

CIVIL COURT NADIAD

Judge

1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Last updated 27-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SAPNABEN RAJENDRABHAI PANJABI

    Adv. J G BRAHMBHATT

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AASHISH VIVEKANAND WAGHVANI Advocate - K C PATEL

  2. 2.ROSHNIBEN VIVEKANAND WAGHVANI

    Adv. K C PATEL

  3. 3.ANJALIBEN MURLIDHARBHAI ISHRANI

    Adv. K C PATEL

  4. 4.RAHULBHAI MURLIDHARBHAI ISHRANI

    Adv. K C PATEL

Case History

  1. 18-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 26-Feb-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 29-Jan-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 01-Jan-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  7. 13-Nov-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  8. 30-Oct-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  9. 25-Sep-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  10. 30-Aug-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  11. 17-Jun-2025

    For R&P

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  12. 27-Mar-2025

    For R&P

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  13. 30-Jan-2025

    For R&P

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  14. 18-Nov-2024

    For R&P

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  15. 13-Sep-2024

    For R&P

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  16. 07-Aug-2024

    For R&P

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  17. 09-Jul-2024

    For R&P

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  18. 10-Jun-2024

    For R&P

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  19. 18-Apr-2024

    For R&P

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  20. 14-Mar-2024

    For R&P

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  21. 15-Feb-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  22. 25-Jan-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  23. 14-Dec-2023

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  24. 28-Nov-2023

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  25. 03-Nov-2023

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  26. 27-Oct-2023

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  27. 21-Sep-2023

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: RCS 148/2023 Outcome: The interim injunction application was rejected. No order as to costs. Key Facts: Petitioner Sapnaben Rajendrabhai Panjabi sought a temporary injunction to prevent respondents from blocking a basement passageway/door on the south wall of her shop property in Nadiad. She claimed the passage was part of the original property purchased from the defendants and should remain accessible. Court's Reasoning: The court found the petitioner failed to satisfy the three requirements for granting interim injunction: (1) no prima facie case existed since alternative pathways to the basement were available; (2) balance of convenience was not in petitioner's favor given alternative access; and (3) no irreparable loss would result since the basement remained accessible via other routes. The court concluded the disputed passageway could not be deemed a necessity, and the petitioner's admission of alternative access undermined her claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  28. 21-Sep-2023

    Plaintiff Evidence

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  29. 18-Sep-2023

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  30. 11-Sep-2023

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  31. 24-Aug-2023

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  32. 18-Aug-2023

    Reply

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  33. 17-Aug-2023

    Reply

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  34. 14-Aug-2023

    Reply

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  35. 09-Aug-2023

    Reply

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  36. 08-Aug-2023

    Reply

    3Rd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC

  37. 03-Aug-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  38. 03-Aug-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 148/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RCS 148/2023 Outcome: The interim injunction application was rejected. No order as to costs. Key Facts: Petitioner Sapnaben Rajendrabhai Panjabi sought a temporary injunction to prevent respondents from blocking a basement passageway/door on the south wall of her shop property in Nadiad. She claimed the passage was part of the original property purchased from the defendants and should remain accessible. Court's Reasoning: The court found the petitioner failed to satisfy the three requirements for granting interim injunction: (1) no prima facie case existed since alternative pathways to the basement were available; (2) balance of convenience was not in petitioner's favor given alternative access; and (3) no irreparable loss would result since the basement remained accessible via other routes. The court concluded the disputed passageway could not be deemed a necessity, and the petitioner's admission of alternative access undermined her claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case