KHIMJIBHAI GABHABHAI KANAR vs LILABEN KAYLANJI KANNAR Advocate - S A RAYMA — 44/2021
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,38. Status: DEFENDANT EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKT040016152021
Next Hearing
25th June 2026
Filing Number
44/2021
Filing Date
08-07-2021
Registration No
44/2021
Registration Date
08-07-2021
Court
TALUKA COURT, MANDVI
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KHIMJIBHAI GABHABHAI KANAR
Adv. V K SONI
Respondent(s)
LILABEN KAYLANJI KANNAR Advocate - S A RAYMA
RAJNIKANT KALYANJI DEDHIYA
Adv. S A RAYMA
MINABEN KAYLANJI W/O NAVIN SANJOT
Adv. S A RAYMA
BHAVESH GIRIJASANKAR DAVE
Adv. A H VYAS
ASHOK KALYANJI KANNAR
Adv. S.A.RAYMA
ARVIND KALYANJI KANNAR(Legal Heir)
Adv. S.A.RAYMA
PARITA ARVIND KANNAR
Adv. S A RAYMA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 11-03-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 26-02-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 12-02-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 05-02-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim order during a pending civil suit over agricultural land ownership (Regular Civil Suit No. 44/2021). The judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, lacked balance of convenience in their favor, and could not demonstrate irreparable injury if the interim order were denied. Consequently, the application for interim relief was rejected, and the suit was left to proceed on its merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim order during a pending civil suit over agricultural land ownership (Regular Civil Suit No. 44/2021). The judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, lacked balance of convenience in their favor, and could not demonstrate irreparable injury if the interim order were denied. Consequently, the application for interim relief was rejected, and the suit was left to proceed on its merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts