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
Filing Number
25/2023
Filing Date
10-Nov-2023
Registration No
25/2023
Registration Date
10-Nov-2023
Court
TALUKA COURT, VADNAGAR
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Last updated 06-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.PATEL NILESHBHAI MAFATLAL
Adv. M J PRAJAPATI
Respondent(s)
-
1.THAKOR PRAVINJI CHHANAJI Advocate - H.R.PATHAN
-
2.DESAI INDIRABEN NAVNEETLAL CHANDULAL
Adv. K S RABARI
-
3.DESAI MAHESHKUMAR NAVNEETLAL
Adv. K S RABARI
-
4.DESAI VINAYKUMAR NAVNEETLAL
Adv. K S RABARI
-
5.DESAI MEENABEN NAVNEETLAL
Adv. K S RABARI
-
6.DESAI YOGIBEN NAVNEETLAL CHANDULAL
Adv. K S RABARI
-
7.DESAI PRAVINABEN NAVNEET CHANDULAL
Adv. K S RABARI
Case History
-
08-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
20-Apr-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
10-Mar-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
16-Feb-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Jan-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
22-Dec-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
24-Nov-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
27-Oct-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
30-Sep-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
15-Sep-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
19-Aug-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
04-Aug-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
15-Jul-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
10-Jun-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
22-Apr-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
17-Mar-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
18-Feb-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Feb-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Jan-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
10-Jan-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
07-Jan-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
17-Dec-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Dec-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
12-Nov-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
07-Oct-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
17-Sep-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
27-Aug-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
05-Aug-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Jul-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
18-Jun-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
08-Apr-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
20-Feb-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
08-Jan-2024
OrderView PDF
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.
-
08-Jan-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
04-Dec-2023
Reply To Counter Claim
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
21-Nov-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Nov-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 25/2023
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.
Explore other courts