BHAGVATIBEN NARENDRABHAI PATEL vs NATVARSINH RATANSINH RAJ Advocate - R K SARAIYA — 20/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Status: DEFENDANT EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKH160002452019
Next Hearing
17th June 2026
Filing Number
20/2019
Filing Date
03-05-2019
Registration No
20/2019
Registration Date
03-05-2019
Court
TALUKA COURT, VASO
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BHAGVATIBEN NARENDRABHAI PATEL
Adv. K.N.PATEL
Respondent(s)
NATVARSINH RATANSINH RAJ Advocate - R K SARAIYA
BHAGAVATBHAI BHIKHABHAI THAKOR
Adv. S M MALEK
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-05-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 16-04-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 03-04-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 16-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 24-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary of Regular Civil Suit No. 20/2019 Petitioner: Bhagvatiben Narendrabhai Patel (through POA) Respondents: Natvarsinh Ratansinh Raj & Others Outcome: The petitioner's suit for declaration of title and possession of agricultural land (Survey No. 307, Vaso) was allowed. The court decreed that the petitioner holds lawful title to the disputed agricultural property and granted a permanent injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from cultivating, harvesting, or interfering with the land. The respondents' counterclaim was rejected. Court costs were awarded against the respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Regular Civil Suit No. 20/2019 Petitioner: Bhagvatiben Narendrabhai Patel (through POA) Respondents: Natvarsinh Ratansinh Raj & Others Outcome: The petitioner's suit for declaration of title and possession of agricultural land (Survey No. 307, Vaso) was allowed. The court decreed that the petitioner holds lawful title to the disputed agricultural property and granted a permanent injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from cultivating, harvesting, or interfering with the land. The respondents' counterclaim was rejected. Court costs were awarded against the respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts