CHAUHAN NARENDRAKUMAR CHANDARSINH vs CHAUHAN JAYESHKUMAR CHANDARASINH Advocate - V R PATEL — 36/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 27,. Status: ISSUES. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJVD050022952023
Next Hearing
09th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
36/2023
Filing Date
27-06-2023
Registration No
36/2023
Registration Date
27-06-2023
Court
TALUKA COURT, SAVLI
Judge
4-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
CHAUHAN NARENDRAKUMAR CHANDARSINH
Adv. N R PATEL
CHAUHAN MANJULABEN
CHAUHAN NIMISHABEN NARENDBHAI
CHAUHAN YATINBHAI NARENDBHAI
Respondent(s)
CHAUHAN JAYESHKUMAR CHANDARASINH Advocate - V R PATEL
Hearing History
Judge: 4-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | ISSUES | |
| 13-02-2026 | ISSUES | |
| 30-01-2026 | ISSUES | |
| 15-01-2026 | ISSUES | |
| 31-12-2025 | ISSUES |
Interim Orders
Summary: The interim injunction application filed by the plaintiff is hereby rejected. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as documentary evidence (Record of Right-6 and the family distribution agreement) shows that the defendant is the legal owner and occupier of the disputed agricultural land (Survey No. 109/2). Since the plaintiff could not prove legal ownership or possession of the suit property, and the balance of convenience favors the defendant, the court declined to grant the injunction and directed each party to bear their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The interim injunction application filed by the plaintiff is hereby rejected. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as documentary evidence (Record of Right-6 and the family distribution agreement) shows that the defendant is the legal owner and occupier of the disputed agricultural land (Survey No. 109/2). Since the plaintiff could not prove legal ownership or possession of the suit property, and the balance of convenience favors the defendant, the court declined to grant the injunction and directed each party to bear their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts