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
Filing Number
16/2023
Filing Date
09-Aug-2023
Registration No
16/2023
Registration Date
09-Aug-2023
Court
TALUKA COURT, VASO
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Last updated 23-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.NASIR PIRMOHAMMAD KHALIFA
Adv. P B BAROT
Respondent(s)
-
1.NAZIM PIRMOHAMMAD KHALIFA Advocate - H U CHAVADA
Case History
-
11-May-2026
Next hearingPending
-
04-Apr-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Mar-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
07-Feb-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
17-Jan-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
07-Jan-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
29-Dec-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
16-Dec-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
26-Nov-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
19-Nov-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
12-Nov-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
28-Oct-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Oct-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
24-Sep-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
04-Sep-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
08-Aug-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
16-Jul-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
25-Jun-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
06-May-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Apr-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
27-Feb-2025
OrderView PDF
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.
-
27-Feb-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
08-Jan-2025
Order On Injuction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
04-Jan-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Dec-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Nov-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Oct-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Sep-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
22-Aug-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
19-Jul-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
28-Jun-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-May-2024
For Counter Affidavit
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
15-Apr-2024
For Counter Affidavit
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
15-Mar-2024
For Counter Affidavit
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
28-Feb-2024
Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
05-Feb-2024
Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
23-Jan-2024
Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
19-Dec-2023
Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
25-Nov-2023
Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
14-Oct-2023
Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
25-Sep-2023
Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
28-Aug-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Aug-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 16/2023
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.
Explore other courts