SHANTABEN NATHUBHAI MORI vs CHANDUBHAI SHANKARBHAI MORI Advocate - M Y VAHORA — 1/2015
Case under Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 006. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 06th May 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJVD040000162015
Next Hearing
06th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1/2015
Filing Date
03-01-2015
Registration No
1/2015
Registration Date
03-01-2015
Court
TALUKA COURT, PADRA
Judge
2-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHANTABEN NATHUBHAI MORI
Adv. M.D.PATEL
RAMANBHAI NATHUBHAI MORI
Adv. M N SHAIKH
JANAKBEN NATHUBHAI MORI
Adv. M.D.PATEL
BALUBEN NATHUBHAI MORI
Adv. M.D.PATEL
KAILASBEN NATHUBHAI MORI
Adv. M D PATEL
PRAVINBHAI NATHUBHAI MORI
Adv. M.D.PATEL
RANJANBEN NATHUBHAI MORI
Adv. M.D.PATEL
ARVINDBHAI NATHUBHAI MORI
Adv. M.D.PATEL
Respondent(s)
CHANDUBHAI SHANKARBHAI MORI Advocate - M Y VAHORA
MOTIBHAI SHANKARBHAI MORI
Adv. M.Y.VAHORA
NATUBHAI JESANGBHAI MORI
Adv. M.Y.VAHORA
BHARMALBHAI JESANGBHAI MORI
Adv. M.Y.VAHORA
BHALABHAI JESANGBHAI MORI
Adv. M.Y.VAHORA
SURAJBEN JESANGBHAI MORI
Adv. M.Y.VAHORA
OTARABEN JESANGBHAI MORI
Adv. M.Y.VAHORA
LATE BHIKHIBEN SHANKARBHAI MORI NA VARASO
Adv. M.Y.VAHORA8.
DINESHBHAI AMARSING PARMAR
Adv. M.Y.VAHORA8.
VITTHALBHAI AMARSING PARMAR
Adv. M.Y.VAHORA8.
RANCHHODBHAI AMARSING PARMAR
Adv. M.Y.VAHORA8.
VILASBEN AMARSING PARMAR
Adv. M.Y.VAHORA
Hearing History
Judge: 2-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 | |
| 12-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 12-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 27-11-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 08-10-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary The petition filed by the plaintiffs seeking an injunction to prevent defendants from constructing on jointly-owned agricultural land in Padra, Gujarat, is dismissed. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish their prima facie case with documentary evidence, and the balance of convenience does not favor granting the relief requested, as the defendants have possessed and cultivated the land for over 25 years without the plaintiffs' permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary The petition filed by the plaintiffs seeking an injunction to prevent defendants from constructing on jointly-owned agricultural land in Padra, Gujarat, is dismissed. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish their prima facie case with documentary evidence, and the balance of convenience does not favor granting the relief requested, as the defendants have possessed and cultivated the land for over 25 years without the plaintiffs' permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts