Chaudhari Babubhai Virsangbhai vs Patel Rajendrabhai Ishvarbhai Advocate - H.M.PATEL — 32/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJMH060004882021
Next Hearing
24th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
32/2021
Filing Date
12-02-2021
Registration No
32/2021
Registration Date
12-02-2021
Court
TALUKA COURT, VISNAGAR
Judge
4-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Chaudhari Babubhai Virsangbhai
Adv. S.H.BAHELIM
Chaudahry Revaben Babubhai
Adv. S.H.BAHELIM
Chaudahri Harshkumar Babubhai
Adv. S.H.BAHELIM
Chaudahri Akashkumar Babubhai
Adv. S.H.BAHELIM
Respondent(s)
Patel Rajendrabhai Ishvarbhai Advocate - H.M.PATEL
Patel Renukaben Rajendrabhai
Adv. H.M.PATEL
Hearing History
Judge: 4-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION
ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 02-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 27-11-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 29-10-2025 | ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION | |
| 30-09-2025 | ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION |
Interim Orders
Case Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's application for interim injunction against the defendants. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as the defendants have legitimate ownership of the disputed land (Survey No. 1890/1B) with proper documentation and have already completed construction work on their property. The balance of convenience favors the defendants, and the plaintiffs have no legal right to obstruct the defendants' use and enjoyment of their own land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's application for interim injunction against the defendants. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as the defendants have legitimate ownership of the disputed land (Survey No. 1890/1B) with proper documentation and have already completed construction work on their property. The balance of convenience favors the defendants, and the plaintiffs have no legal right to obstruct the defendants' use and enjoyment of their own land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts