THAKOR DOLATSINH HAMIRSINH vs NATVARSINH HAMIRSINH THAKOR Advocate - K N PATEL — 6/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Status: Defendant Evidence. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.

Defendant Evidence Next hearing 10-Apr-2026 this date has passed

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJLV020009742023

Filing Number

6/2023

Filing Date

14-Feb-2023

Registration No

6/2023

Registration Date

14-Feb-2023

Court

TALUKA COURT, LUNAWADA

Judge

2-Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

Last updated 10-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 9

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THAKOR DOLATSINH HAMIRSINH

    Adv. P D PATHAK

  2. 2.THAKOR AJITSINH HAMIRSINH

  3. 3.THAKOR DASHRATHSINH HAMIRSINH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NATVARSINH HAMIRSINH THAKOR Advocate - K N PATEL

  2. 2.RANVIRSINH NATVARSINH THAKOR

    Adv. K N PATEL

  3. 3.NARENDRASINH NATVARSINH THAKOR

    Adv. K N PATEL

Case History

  1. 10-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 05-Mar-2026

    Defendant Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  3. 17-Jan-2026

    Defendant Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  4. 19-Dec-2025

    Defendant Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  5. 19-Nov-2025

    Defendant Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  6. 09-Oct-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  7. 08-Oct-2025

    Defendant Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  8. 11-Sep-2025

    Defendant Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  9. 22-Aug-2025

    Defendant Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  10. 05-Jul-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  11. 08-May-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  12. 04-Apr-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  13. 05-Mar-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  14. 03-Feb-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  15. 24-Dec-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  16. 16-Nov-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  17. 01-Oct-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  18. 25-Sep-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  19. 02-Sep-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  20. 05-Aug-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  21. 05-Jul-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  22. 11-Jun-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  23. 16-Apr-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  24. 20-Mar-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  25. 20-Feb-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  26. 22-Jan-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  27. 08-Jan-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  28. 16-Dec-2023

    Plaintiff Evidence

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  29. 02-Dec-2023

    Issues

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  30. 09-Nov-2023

    Order

    SUMMARY The court rejected the plaintiffs' interim injunction application in a property dispute over ancestral agricultural land in Village Ghantiyada. The judge found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for possession, as mere revenue record entries do not prove actual possession, and the Court Commissioner's report did not clarify who actually cultivated the land. Additionally, the balance of convenience was not in favor of the plaintiffs, and they failed to demonstrate irreparable loss if the injunction was denied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  31. 09-Nov-2023

    Order On Injuction Application

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  32. 04-Nov-2023

    Order On Injuction Application

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  33. 26-Oct-2023

    Order On Injuction Application

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  34. 20-Oct-2023

    Order On Injuction Application

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  35. 18-Oct-2023

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  36. 13-Oct-2023

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  37. 26-Sep-2023

    For Counter Affidavit

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  38. 01-Sep-2023

    For Counter Affidavit

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  39. 09-Aug-2023

    Written Statement/Reply

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  40. 07-Aug-2023

    Written Statement/Reply

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  41. 18-Jul-2023

    Written Statement/Reply

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  42. 14-Jun-2023

    Written Statement/Reply

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  43. 02-May-2023

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  44. 11-Apr-2023

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  45. 14-Mar-2023

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  46. 14-Feb-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  47. 14-Feb-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 6/2023

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The court rejected the plaintiffs' interim injunction application in a property dispute over ancestral agricultural land in Village Ghantiyada. The judge found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for possession, as mere revenue record entries do not prove actual possession, and the Court Commissioner's report did not clarify who actually cultivated the land. Additionally, the balance of convenience was not in favor of the plaintiffs, and they failed to demonstrate irreparable loss if the injunction was denied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case