NASIR PIRMOHAMMAD KHALIFA vs NAZIM PIRMOHAMMAD KHALIFA Advocate - H U CHAVADA — 16/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 11th May 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKH160004162023
Next Hearing
11th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
16/2023
Filing Date
09-08-2023
Registration No
16/2023
Registration Date
09-08-2023
Court
TALUKA COURT, VASO
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
NASIR PIRMOHAMMAD KHALIFA
Adv. P B BAROT
Respondent(s)
NAZIM PIRMOHAMMAD KHALIFA Advocate - H U CHAVADA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 04-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 09-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 07-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 17-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 07-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Regular Civil Suit No. 16/2023 | Nasir Pirmahomad Khalifa v/s Nazim Pirmahomad Khalifa (PCJ-Vaso) Outcome: The plaintiff's application for mandatory injunction is rejected. The court ruled that a co-owner not in possession of jointly-held property cannot seek injunction against another co-owner unless the latter's actions constitute ouster or cause diminution in property value; the proper remedy is partition, not injunction. The plaintiff's claim to 2/3 share of the disputed property is dismissed, and cost is awarded to the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Regular Civil Suit No. 16/2023 | Nasir Pirmahomad Khalifa v/s Nazim Pirmahomad Khalifa (PCJ-Vaso) Outcome: The plaintiff's application for mandatory injunction is rejected. The court ruled that a co-owner not in possession of jointly-held property cannot seek injunction against another co-owner unless the latter's actions constitute ouster or cause diminution in property value; the proper remedy is partition, not injunction. The plaintiff's claim to 2/3 share of the disputed property is dismissed, and cost is awarded to the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts