MAHMADSALIM FATEKHAN PATHAN vs IMRANKHAN MAHREABKHAN PATHAN AND OTHERS Advocate - A A BRAHMBHATT — 60/2021

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 4,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 21st April 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJKH040006362021

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

21st April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

60/2021

Filing Date

12-11-2021

Registration No

60/2021

Registration Date

12-11-2021

Court

TALUKA COURT, MATAR

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 4,
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 Section 37,38,

Petitioner(s)

MAHMADSALIM FATEKHAN PATHAN

Adv. D D PAREKH

Respondent(s)

IMRANKHAN MAHREABKHAN PATHAN AND OTHERS Advocate - A A BRAHMBHATT

MUNAVARKHAN MAHERABKHAN PATHAN

NURBIBI DILBASHKHAN PATHAN

MUMTAJBIBI DILBASHKHAN PATHAN

SATARKHA DILBASHKHAN PATHAN

NAJIRAKHA DILABASAHKHAN PATHAN

SUBEKHA DILABASHKHAN PATHAN

MARIYAMBIBI DILBASHKHAN PATHAN

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

06-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

20-01-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

26-12-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

25-11-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

14-10-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

01-08-2025
ORDER

Summary The Principal Civil Judge, Matar granted a temporary injunction petition in favor of the plaintiff in a money recovery and property sale dispute. The court found a prima facie case established, as the plaintiff paid Rs. 17,00,000 toward a property purchase but the defendant failed to execute the sale deed or return funds, with a dishonored cheque as supporting evidence. Defendants were directed to not alienate the suit property pending further court orders, and both parties bear their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Principal Civil Judge, Matar granted a temporary injunction petition in favor of the plaintiff in a money recovery and property sale dispute. The court found a prima facie case established, as the plaintiff paid Rs. 17,00,000 toward a property purchase but the defendant failed to execute the sale deed or return funds, with a dishonored cheque as supporting evidence. Defendants were directed to not alienate the suit property pending further court orders, and both parties bear their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, MATAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case