HAIRS OF MANGALBHAI MADHABHAI BHIMABHAI PADHIYAR 1. PADHIYAR PUNJIBEN MANGALBHAI vs PADHIYAR MELABHAI CHHATRASANG Advocate - N S MALEK — 64/2017

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 38. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 02nd April 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJVD040020762017

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

02nd April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

64/2017

Filing Date

28-08-2017

Registration No

64/2017

Registration Date

28-08-2017

Court

TALUKA COURT, PADRA

Judge

3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 38

Petitioner(s)

HAIRS OF MANGALBHAI MADHABHAI BHIMABHAI PADHIYAR 1. PADHIYAR PUNJIBEN MANGALBHAI

Adv. S S PATEL

PADHIYAR NATUBHAI MANGALBHAI

Adv. S S PATEL

PADHIYAR KAPILABEN MANGALBHAI

Adv. S S PATEL

PADHIYAR KANTIBHAI MAGALBHAI

Adv. S S PATEL

PADHIYAR ARVINDBHAI MANGALBHAI

Adv. S S PATEL

Respondent(s)

PADHIYAR MELABHAI CHHATRASANG Advocate - N S MALEK

Hearing History

Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

05-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

23-02-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

05-02-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

22-01-2026

DEFENDANT EVIDENCE

20-01-2026

DEFENDANT EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

21-10-2024
ORDER

Summary Petition Dismissed: The court rejected the plaintiffs' appeal for a mandatory injunction to prevent the defendant from cultivating jointly-held agricultural land in Padra, Vadodara. The judge found that both parties held equal rights to the shared property and rejected the plaintiffs' claim of being the first-instance case owners, thus denying the requested relief and ordering the appeal to be dismissed with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary Petition Dismissed: The court rejected the plaintiffs' appeal for a mandatory injunction to prevent the defendant from cultivating jointly-held agricultural land in Padra, Vadodara. The judge found that both parties held equal rights to the shared property and rejected the plaintiffs' claim of being the first-instance case owners, thus denying the requested relief and ordering the appeal to be dismissed with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, PADRA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case