PATEL KANTIBHAI KACHARABHAI vs THAKOR LAKSHMANSINH AMARSINH Advocate - V B VAIDYA — 47/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,38. Status: Plaintiff Evidence. Next hearing: 07th May 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJMH070019092025
Filing Number
47/2025
Filing Date
09-Sep-2025
Registration No
47/2025
Registration Date
09-Sep-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, VIJAPUR
Judge
5-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Last updated 13-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.PATEL KANTIBHAI KACHARABHAI
Adv. J L PATHAN
-
2.PATEL APARNABEN KANTIBHAI VITHTHALDAS
Respondent(s)
-
1.THAKOR LAKSHMANSINH AMARSINH Advocate - V B VAIDYA
-
2.THAKOR RANJITSINH DINESHSINH
Adv. V B VAIDYA
-
3.THAKOR SHARDABA DALPATSINH
Adv. V B VAIDYA
-
4.THAKOR KANAKSINH ADAJI
Adv. V B VAIDYA
-
5.THAKOR BHIKHUSINH HAJURSANG
Adv. V B VAIDYA
-
6.THAKOR ANVARSINH HAJURSANG
Adv. V B VAIDYA
-
7.THAKOR PRAVINSINH HAJURSANG
Adv. V B VAIDYA
-
8.THAKOR DANSINH KODARSANG
Adv. V B VAIDYA
-
9.THAKOR DURSINH KODARSANG
Adv. V B VAIDYA
-
10.THAKOR VAKTUSINH KODARSANG RATNAJI
Adv. V B VAIDYA
-
11.THAKOR JAGATSINH KODARSANG RATANAJI
Adv. V B VAIDYA
-
12.THAKOR URFE CHAUHAN KAILASHBA MAHENDRASINH
Adv. V B VAIDYA
-
13.THAKOR JITENDRASINH DALPATSINH
Adv. V B VAIDYA
-
14.THAKOR RAJENDRASINH DALPATSINH
Adv. V B VAIDYA
-
15.THAKOR DHARAMSINH DALPATSINH
Adv. V B VAIDYA
-
16.CHAUHAN SAVITABEN KANAKSINH
Adv. V B VAIDYA
-
17.CHAUHAN NANDUBA KANAKSINH
Adv. V B VAIDYA
-
18.CHAUHAN JASHIBEN KANAKSINH
Adv. V B VAIDYA
-
19.CHAUHAN JAYENDRASINH KANAKSINH
Adv. V B VAIDYA
-
20.PRAJAPATI PRAVINBHAI HARGOVANDAS
Adv. A M SAIYAD
Case History
-
07-May-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Apr-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
16-Mar-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
07-Mar-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
26-Feb-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
19-Feb-2026
OrderView PDF
Summary: The court dismissed the plaintiff's interim relief application (Anjak-5) under the Specific Relief Act. The court found that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case, as the sale deed was executed in favor of defendant no. 20 and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate performance of contractual conditions or that monetary compensation would be inadequate. Consequently, the court ruled against all four issues raised and ordered the petition dismissed with costs to follow the final judgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
19-Feb-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Feb-2026
Hearing On Injunction Application
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
10-Feb-2026
Hearing On Injunction Application
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
02-Feb-2026
Hearing On Injunction Application
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
27-Jan-2026
Written Statement/Reply
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
20-Jan-2026
Written Statement/Reply
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
30-Dec-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Dec-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
27-Nov-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Nov-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Oct-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Sep-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 47/2025
Summary: The court dismissed the plaintiff's interim relief application (Anjak-5) under the Specific Relief Act. The court found that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case, as the sale deed was executed in favor of defendant no. 20 and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate performance of contractual conditions or that monetary compensation would be inadequate. Consequently, the court ruled against all four issues raised and ordered the petition dismissed with costs to follow the final judgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts