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

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

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

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 9,

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

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

23-02-2026
ORDER
23-02-2026
ORDER

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, THASRA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case