PATEL NATAVARBAHAI MANCHHARAMBHAI vs PATEL CHHANABHAI MANCHHARAMBHAI Advocate - K S RABARI — 8/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 38,. Status: DEFENDANT EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 19th May 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJMH090004762022
Next Hearing
19th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
8/2022
Filing Date
02-05-2022
Registration No
8/2022
Registration Date
02-05-2022
Court
TALUKA COURT, VADNAGAR
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PATEL NATAVARBAHAI MANCHHARAMBHAI
Adv. H R PATHAN
Respondent(s)
PATEL CHHANABHAI MANCHHARAMBHAI Advocate - K S RABARI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE | |
| 30-03-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE | |
| 10-03-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE | |
| 23-02-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE | |
| 02-02-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Petition Denied/Dismissed: The Principal Civil Judge of Vadnagar rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff's right of way. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as the plaintiff did not adequately prove the easementary right of way and could not provide concrete evidence (such as a Panchnama) that no alternative passage exists. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Petition Denied/Dismissed: The Principal Civil Judge of Vadnagar rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff's right of way. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as the plaintiff did not adequately prove the easementary right of way and could not provide concrete evidence (such as a Panchnama) that no alternative passage exists. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts