KANTIBHAI THAKORBHAI CHAUHAN vs RANGUBEN WD/O GANGJIBHAI GAMIT — 29/2023
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 31,37,38,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 03rd April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJTP020032462023
Next Hearing
03rd April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
29/2023
Filing Date
21-08-2023
Registration No
29/2023
Registration Date
21-08-2023
Court
CIVIL COURT, VYARA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KANTIBHAI THAKORBHAI CHAUHAN
Adv. J G RAVAL
KISHORBHAI THAKORBHAI CHAUHAN
KIRITBHAI THAKORBHAI CHAUHAN
Adv. J G RAVAL
DHANSUKHBHAI NARSINHBHAI PARMAR
KISHORBHAI NARSINHBHAI PARMAR
SHILABEN NARSINHBHAI PARMAR
SURESHBHAI NARSINHBHAI PARMAR
PRAFULBHAI JAGJIVANBHAI PARMAR
NARESHBHAI JAGJIVANBHAI PARMAR
RAMESHBHAI MAGANBHAI PARMAR
KANTIBHAI MAGANBHAI PARMAR
JOSHNABEN MAGANBHAI PARMAR
NEELABEN MAGANBHAI PARMAR
ANITABEN MAGANBHAI PARMAR
MINAKSHIBEN MAGANBHAI PARMAR
RAMESHBHAI NAGINBHAI PARMAR
HANSABEN NAGINBHAI PARMAR
KIRANBHAI NAGINBHAI PARMAR
ANILBHAI NAGINBHAI PARMAR
PRAVINBHAI NAGINBHAI PARMAR
SANJAYBHAI NAGINBHAI PARMAR
HIRENKUMAR KIRITBHAI CHAUHAN POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PLAINTIFF NO.1 TO 21
Respondent(s)
RANGUBEN WD/O GANGJIBHAI GAMIT
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 04-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 08-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 04-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 14-10-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary The court rejected the interim relief application filed by the plaintiffs seeking to restrain the defendant from disposing of disputed land. The judge found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, having stated false and contradictory facts on record—specifically, their power of attorney holder had participated in and testified in the original 2003 revenue proceedings acknowledging the defendant's tenancy. Additionally, the court held that revenue authority findings must be respected by civil courts. Cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the plaintiffs, to be credited to the state exchequer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court rejected the interim relief application filed by the plaintiffs seeking to restrain the defendant from disposing of disputed land. The judge found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, having stated false and contradictory facts on record—specifically, their power of attorney holder had participated in and testified in the original 2003 revenue proceedings acknowledging the defendant's tenancy. Additionally, the court held that revenue authority findings must be respected by civil courts. Cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the plaintiffs, to be credited to the state exchequer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts