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.

Defendant Evidence Next hearing 19-May-2026 this date has passed

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJMH090004762022

Filing Number

8/2022

Filing Date

02-May-2022

Registration No

8/2022

Registration Date

02-May-2022

Court

TALUKA COURT, VADNAGAR

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Last updated 06-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 38

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PATEL NATAVARBAHAI MANCHHARAMBHAI

    Adv. H R PATHAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PATEL CHHANABHAI MANCHHARAMBHAI Advocate - K S RABARI

Case History

  1. 19-May-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 20-Apr-2026

    Defendant Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Defendant Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Defendant Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 23-Feb-2026

    Defendant Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 02-Feb-2026

    Defendant Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 05-Jan-2026

    Defendant Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 09-Dec-2025

    Defendant Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 24-Nov-2025

    Defendant Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 27-Oct-2025

    Defendant Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 30-Sep-2025

    Defendant Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 15-Sep-2025

    Defendant Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 26-Aug-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 18-Aug-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 28-Jul-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 30-Jun-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 12-Jun-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 28-Apr-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 25-Mar-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 11-Mar-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 24-Feb-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 27-Jan-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 30-Dec-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 09-Dec-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  25. 12-Nov-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  26. 07-Oct-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  27. 17-Sep-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  28. 13-Aug-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  29. 30-Jul-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  30. 09-Jul-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  31. 18-Jun-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  32. 15-Apr-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  33. 05-Mar-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  34. 22-Jan-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  35. 18-Dec-2023

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  36. 27-Oct-2023

    OrderView PDF

    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.

  37. 27-Oct-2023

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  38. 21-Oct-2023

    Order On Injuction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  39. 06-Oct-2023

    Order On Injuction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  40. 22-Sep-2023

    Order On Injuction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  41. 28-Aug-2023

    Order On Injuction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  42. 10-Jul-2023

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  43. 06-Jun-2023

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  44. 11-Apr-2023

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  45. 13-Mar-2023

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  46. 30-Jan-2023

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  47. 22-Dec-2022

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  48. 22-Nov-2022

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  49. 10-Oct-2022

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  50. 17-Sep-2022

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  51. 29-Aug-2022

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  52. 19-Jul-2022

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  53. 28-Jun-2022

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  54. 10-May-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  55. 02-May-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 8/2022

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case