AMBALAL PUJABHAI RATHOD vs BALABHAI LALABHAI RATHOD Advocate - M M KHOKHAR — 54/2017
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 034,038,039,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKH080014872017
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
54/2017
Filing Date
20-12-2017
Registration No
54/2017
Registration Date
20-12-2017
Court
TALUKA COURT, KATHLAL
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
AMBALAL PUJABHAI RATHOD
Adv. D.B.DABHI
Respondent(s)
BALABHAI LALABHAI RATHOD Advocate - M M KHOKHAR
ESHABHAI LALABHAI RATHOD
Adv. M M KHOKHAR
KASHIBEN SOMABHAI(Abated)
CHANCHALBE SOMABHAI(Abated)
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 09-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 09-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 22-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 27-11-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary The petition for a temporary mandatory order filed by the plaintiff (Ambalal Pujabhay Rathod) against the defendants regarding disputed agricultural land in Kathlal has been dismissed/rejected. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought, as the land was validly sold to the defendants by the original owner with proper documentation and witness attestation, and the defendants remain in lawful possession. The court held that without a strong foundational case, other considerations like balance of convenience are immaterial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The petition for a temporary mandatory order filed by the plaintiff (Ambalal Pujabhay Rathod) against the defendants regarding disputed agricultural land in Kathlal has been dismissed/rejected. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought, as the land was validly sold to the defendants by the original owner with proper documentation and witness attestation, and the defendants remain in lawful possession. The court held that without a strong foundational case, other considerations like balance of convenience are immaterial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts