PATEL NILESHBHAI MAFATLAL vs THAKOR PRAVINJI CHHANAJI Advocate - H.R.PATHAN — 25/2023

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJMH090008452023

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

08th June 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

25/2023

Filing Date

10-11-2023

Registration No

25/2023

Registration Date

10-11-2023

Court

TALUKA COURT, VADNAGAR

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Acts & Sections

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 Section 34

Petitioner(s)

PATEL NILESHBHAI MAFATLAL

Adv. M J PRAJAPATI

Respondent(s)

THAKOR PRAVINJI CHHANAJI Advocate - H.R.PATHAN

DESAI INDIRABEN NAVNEETLAL CHANDULAL

Adv. K S RABARI

DESAI MAHESHKUMAR NAVNEETLAL

Adv. K S RABARI

DESAI VINAYKUMAR NAVNEETLAL

Adv. K S RABARI

DESAI MEENABEN NAVNEETLAL

Adv. K S RABARI

DESAI YOGIBEN NAVNEETLAL CHANDULAL

Adv. K S RABARI

DESAI PRAVINABEN NAVNEET CHANDULAL

Adv. K S RABARI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

20-04-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

10-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

16-02-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

13-01-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

22-12-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

08-01-2024
ORDER

Case Summary Outcome: Both applications REJECTED The court rejected the plaintiff's applications for temporary and mandatory injunctions in a property possession dispute. The Principal Civil Judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and legal possession of the rented shop, noting critical deficiencies: no genealogy proof of heirship, absence of rent receipts after 2019, and inconsistencies regarding the original agreement made with co-heirs. The court held that without establishing legal possession, no injunction could be granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Outcome: Both applications REJECTED The court rejected the plaintiff's applications for temporary and mandatory injunctions in a property possession dispute. The Principal Civil Judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and legal possession of the rented shop, noting critical deficiencies: no genealogy proof of heirship, absence of rent receipts after 2019, and inconsistencies regarding the original agreement made with co-heirs. The court held that without establishing legal possession, no injunction could be granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, VADNAGAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case