PATEL HEMCHANDBHAI RAMJIBHAI vs PATEL GANESHBHAI VITTHALBHAI KEVALDAS Advocate - N M PARMAR — 67/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 27. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 12th May 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJMH060012122022
Next Hearing
12th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
67/2022
Filing Date
16-05-2022
Registration No
67/2022
Registration Date
16-05-2022
Court
TALUKA COURT, VISNAGAR
Judge
3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PATEL HEMCHANDBHAI RAMJIBHAI
Adv. G B BAROT
LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED PATEL HARJIBHA RAMJIBHAI(Legal Heir)
Adv. G B BAROT2.
PATEL DIPAKBHAI HARJIVANBHAI
Adv. G B BAROT
PATEL BHANUPRASAD RAMJIBHAI
Adv. G B BAROT
PATEL KANTABEN D/O RAMJIBHAI NAGARBHAI
Adv. G B BAROT
PATEL DAHIBEN D/O RAMJIBHAI NAGARBHAI
Adv. G B BAROT
Respondent(s)
PATEL GANESHBHAI VITTHALBHAI KEVALDAS Advocate - N M PARMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 28-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 02-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 07-11-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 18-09-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary: The injunction application has been dismissed. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima-facie case, prove irreparable loss, or demonstrate that the balance of convenience favored them, as they did not adequately show that the defendant's construction was illegal or created any hindrance to their property. However, both parties are ordered to maintain status-quo of the suit property until final disposal of the case, and the substantive dispute will be resolved after full trial with evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The injunction application has been dismissed. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima-facie case, prove irreparable loss, or demonstrate that the balance of convenience favored them, as they did not adequately show that the defendant's construction was illegal or created any hindrance to their property. However, both parties are ordered to maintain status-quo of the suit property until final disposal of the case, and the substantive dispute will be resolved after full trial with evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts