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
Filing Number
29/2023
Filing Date
21-Aug-2023
Registration No
29/2023
Registration Date
21-Aug-2023
Court
CIVIL COURT, VYARA
Judge
1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
Last updated 10-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.KANTIBHAI THAKORBHAI CHAUHAN
Adv. J G RAVAL
-
2.KISHORBHAI THAKORBHAI CHAUHAN
-
3.KIRITBHAI THAKORBHAI CHAUHAN
Adv. J G RAVAL
-
4.DHANSUKHBHAI NARSINHBHAI PARMAR
-
5.KISHORBHAI NARSINHBHAI PARMAR
-
6.SHILABEN NARSINHBHAI PARMAR
-
7.SURESHBHAI NARSINHBHAI PARMAR
-
8.PRAFULBHAI JAGJIVANBHAI PARMAR
-
9.NARESHBHAI JAGJIVANBHAI PARMAR
-
10.RAMESHBHAI MAGANBHAI PARMAR
-
11.KANTIBHAI MAGANBHAI PARMAR
-
12.JOSHNABEN MAGANBHAI PARMAR
-
13.NEELABEN MAGANBHAI PARMAR
-
14.ANITABEN MAGANBHAI PARMAR
-
15.MINAKSHIBEN MAGANBHAI PARMAR
-
16.RAMESHBHAI NAGINBHAI PARMAR
-
17.HANSABEN NAGINBHAI PARMAR
-
18.KIRANBHAI NAGINBHAI PARMAR
-
19.ANILBHAI NAGINBHAI PARMAR
-
20.PRAVINBHAI NAGINBHAI PARMAR
-
21.SANJAYBHAI NAGINBHAI PARMAR
-
22.HIRENKUMAR KIRITBHAI CHAUHAN POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PLAINTIFF NO.1 TO 21
Respondent(s)
-
1.RANGUBEN WD/O GANGJIBHAI GAMIT
Case History
-
03-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
05-Mar-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
04-Feb-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
08-Jan-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
04-Dec-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
14-Oct-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
10-Oct-2025
JudegementView PDF
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.
-
10-Oct-2025
Issues
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
03-Oct-2025
Order On Injuction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
23-Sep-2025
Order On Injuction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
04-Sep-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
30-Aug-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
25-Jul-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
27-Jun-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
30-May-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
03-May-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
15-Mar-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
10-Feb-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
24-Dec-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
18-Nov-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
14-Oct-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
10-Sep-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
31-Jul-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
04-Jul-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
11-Jun-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
01-May-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
02-Apr-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
12-Mar-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
01-Feb-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
18-Jan-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
16-Dec-2023
Hearing On Injunction Application
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
08-Nov-2023
Reply
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
26-Sep-2023
Reply
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
12-Sep-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-Aug-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 29/2023
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.
Explore other courts