FAKIR AHEMADSH KALUSH (DIVAN) vs BAFATISHA KALUSH DIVEN Advocate - B P PUROHIT — 10/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKH070005522025
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
10/2025
Filing Date
25-08-2025
Registration No
10/2025
Registration Date
25-08-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, THASRA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
FAKIR AHEMADSH KALUSH (DIVAN)
Adv. K N PATEL
FAKIR YASINSH KALUSH (DIVAN)
Respondent(s)
BAFATISHA KALUSH DIVEN Advocate - B P PUROHIT
SABIRASH RAHIMSH DIVAN
HALIMABIBI RAHIMSH DIVAN OF DAUGHTER
HANIFABIBI RAHIMSH DIVAN OF DAUGHTER
KHERUNBIBI RAHIMSH DIVAN OF DAUGHTER
MAHEMUDSH RAHIMSH DIVAN
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 06-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 09-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 23-02-2026 | DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE | |
| 02-02-2026 | ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court dismissed the plaintiff's interim relief application (Interim Order-5) seeking a mandatory injunction against the defendants to prevent interference with the disputed agricultural land. The court found that the plaintiffs lack a prima facie case as the defendants, being legal heirs of the original landowner, have superior ownership rights over the property. The court held that no injunction can be granted against the property owner in favor of persons with unlawful possession, thereby rejecting the plaintiffs' relief application without prejudice to their rights in the main suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court dismissed the plaintiff's interim relief application (Interim Order-5) seeking a mandatory injunction against the defendants to prevent interference with the disputed agricultural land. The court found that the plaintiffs lack a prima facie case as the defendants, being legal heirs of the original landowner, have superior ownership rights over the property. The court held that no injunction can be granted against the property owner in favor of persons with unlawful possession, thereby rejecting the plaintiffs' relief application without prejudice to their rights in the main suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts