RAMESHBHAI JESINGBHAI NAYAK vs MAVSING FATUBHAI RATHWA Advocate - A D SATNAMI — 33/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,37,39,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJPM040012342022
Next Hearing
09th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
33/2022
Filing Date
25-03-2022
Registration No
33/2022
Registration Date
25-03-2022
Court
TALUKA COURT, HALOL
Judge
3-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAMESHBHAI JESINGBHAI NAYAK
Adv. N L VARIA
CHINIBEN JESINGBHAI NAYAK
KAVITABEN JESINGBHAI NAYAK
MUKESHBHAI DINESHBHAI NAYAK
LILABEN DINESHBHAI NAYAK
MADABHAI DHANJIBHAI NAYAK
Respondent(s)
MAVSING FATUBHAI RATHWA Advocate - A D SATNAMI
Hearing History
Judge: 3-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 06-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 23-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 18-11-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 04-11-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Case: Land possession dispute (Section 5 case) regarding agricultural land in Halol, Gujarat Outcome: The petition is dismissed (DENIED). The court rejected the plaintiffs' claim for land possession, finding that they had not established sufficient documentary evidence of ownership or the defendant's wrongful occupation. The court noted that the plaintiffs failed to provide primary evidence supporting their claims regarding the land's history of possession and inheritance rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Case: Land possession dispute (Section 5 case) regarding agricultural land in Halol, Gujarat Outcome: The petition is dismissed (DENIED). The court rejected the plaintiffs' claim for land possession, finding that they had not established sufficient documentary evidence of ownership or the defendant's wrongful occupation. The court noted that the plaintiffs failed to provide primary evidence supporting their claims regarding the land's history of possession and inheritance rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts