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.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJLV020009742023
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
6/2023
Filing Date
14-02-2023
Registration No
6/2023
Registration Date
14-02-2023
Court
TALUKA COURT, LUNAWADA
Judge
2-CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THAKOR DOLATSINH HAMIRSINH
Adv. P D PATHAK
THAKOR AJITSINH HAMIRSINH
THAKOR DASHRATHSINH HAMIRSINH
Respondent(s)
NATVARSINH HAMIRSINH THAKOR Advocate - K N PATEL
RANVIRSINH NATVARSINH THAKOR
Adv. K N PATEL
NARENDRASINH NATVARSINH THAKOR
Adv. K N PATEL
Hearing History
Judge: 2-CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE | |
| 17-01-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE | |
| 19-12-2025 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE | |
| 19-11-2025 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE | |
| 09-10-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts