PATEL PINALBEN D/O PATEL BIPINBHAI AMBALAL AND W/O PATEL BIPINKUMAR MAHENDRABHAI vs PATEL HARGOVANBHAI JIVIDAS — 46/2024
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 38,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 02nd April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJMH160008132024
Next Hearing
02nd April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
46/2024
Filing Date
27-02-2024
Registration No
46/2024
Registration Date
27-02-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT-JOTANA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PATEL PINALBEN D/O PATEL BIPINBHAI AMBALAL AND W/O PATEL BIPINKUMAR MAHENDRABHAI
Adv. R K SONI
PATEL PRINCE BIPINBHA MINOR GUARDIAN PLAINTIFF NO.1
Respondent(s)
PATEL HARGOVANBHAI JIVIDAS
PATEL BABUBHAI KESHAVLAL
PATEL SAVITABEN KESHAVLAL
PATEL PRAHLADBHAI JIVIDAS
PATEL GAURIBEN KESHAVLAL
PATEL SAVITABEN KESHAVLAL
PATEL SANTOKBEN KESHAVLAL
PATEL LILABEN KESHAVLAL
PATEL VASUDEV BHAGVANDAS
PATEL HIRDAS UGARDAS
PATEL BHAGVATIBEN AMBALAL
PATEL BHIKHABHAI AMBALAL
Adv. P A RATHOD
PATEL MAHENDRABHAI BABUBHAI
Adv. P A RATHOD
PATEL BIPINKUMAR MAHEDNRABHAI
PATEL BHAVANABEN BABUBHAI
PATEL MANISH DAHYABHAI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 20-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 23-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 02-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 05-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary This Gujarat court order dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction application in a matrimonial and property dispute case. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury—the three essential requirements under CPC Order 39 for granting interim relief. Consequently, the application was rejected without cost orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This Gujarat court order dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction application in a matrimonial and property dispute case. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury—the three essential requirements under CPC Order 39 for granting interim relief. Consequently, the application was rejected without cost orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts