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
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
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
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts