JAYESHKUMAR KANUBHAI PATEL vs KIRTIKUMAR RATILAL PATEL Advocate - B P PUROHIT — 9/2023
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,38,9,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 27th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKH170001212023
Next Hearing
27th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
9/2023
Filing Date
06-02-2023
Registration No
9/2023
Registration Date
06-02-2023
Court
Taluka Court, Galteshwar
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
JAYESHKUMAR KANUBHAI PATEL
Adv. K N PATEL
KPATEL KOMALBEN @ MAYANKBHAI ANUBHAI
PATEL DRUHVIBEN MAYANKBHAI
PATEL PARTH MAYANKBHAI
Respondent(s)
KIRTIKUMAR RATILAL PATEL Advocate - B P PUROHIT
HEMANTBHAI MANIBHAI PATEL
DINESHBHAI VITTHALBHAI PATEL
RAGHUBHAI GHELABHAI PATEL
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 09-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 16-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 12-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 22-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY Petition: R.C.S. No. 09/2023 Court: Gujarat High Court Outcome: The petition has been dismissed. The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction against the defendants. The Court held that: 1. The plaintiffs could not prove ownership/exclusive possession of the disputed agricultural land (Survey No. 347/2) 2. The defendants' land sale documents were legally valid and properly registered 3. The plaintiffs' claim that defendants encroached on their land lacks sufficient documentary evidence and proper land survey measurements from both parties 4. Without measuring both survey numbers (plaintiff's and defendant's), no proper conclusion about encroachment could be drawn 5. The plaintiffs failed to follow statutory procedures for land measurement and did not obtain proper technical surveys The Court declined to grant injunction relief, finding no irreparable harm or balance of convenience in the plaintiffs' favor, particularly where the underlying prima facie case itself was weak. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY Petition: R.C.S. No. 09/2023 Court: Gujarat High Court Outcome: The petition has been dismissed. The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction against the defendants. The Court held that: 1. The plaintiffs could not prove ownership/exclusive possession of the disputed agricultural land (Survey No. 347/2) 2. The defendants' land sale documents were legally valid and properly registered 3. The plaintiffs' claim that defendants encroached on their land lacks sufficient documentary evidence and proper land survey measurements from both parties 4. Without measuring both survey numbers (plaintiff's and defendant's), no proper conclusion about encroachment could be drawn 5. The plaintiffs failed to follow statutory procedures for land measurement and did not obtain proper technical surveys The Court declined to grant injunction relief, finding no irreparable harm or balance of convenience in the plaintiffs' favor, particularly where the underlying prima facie case itself was weak. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts