JAYDEVKUMAR BHARATSINH PARMAR vs ABHAYSING BHAGWANSINH PARMAR DECD THROUGH LRS AND ORS Advocate - Girish R Agrawal 1. — WP/11573/2019

Case under C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 24-Feb-2020

CNR: HCBM010337422019

Filing Number

WP/20282/2019

Filing Date

18-Jul-2019

Registration No

WP/11573/2019

Registration Date

07-Nov-2019

Judge

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gauri Godse

Coram

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gauri Godse

Bench Type

Single

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )

Sub-Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 11 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JAYDEVKUMAR BHARATSINH PARMAR

    Adv. Jyoti Chavan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ABHAYSING BHAGWANSINH PARMAR DECD THROUGH LRS AND ORS Advocate - Girish R Agrawal 1.

  2. 2.SAROJBEN ABHAYSINH PARMAR

    Adv. GIRISH R. AGRAWAL1.

  3. 3.MANISHABEN ABHAYSINH PARMAR

    Adv. GIRISH R. AGRAWAL1.

  4. 4.RAKHABEN ABHAYSINH PARMAR

    Adv. GIRISH R. AGRAWAL1.

  5. 5.SONALBEN ABHAYSINH PARMAR

    Adv. GIRISH R. AGRAWAL

  6. 6.ISHWARSINH BHAGWANSING PARMAR

    Adv. GIRISH R. AGRAWAL

  7. 7.JANAKSINH BHAGWANSINH PARMAR (SINCE DECEASED THRUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR)(Legal Heir)

    Adv. GIRISH R. AGRAWAL3.

  8. 8.LATABEN JANAKSINH PARMAR

    Adv. GIRISH R. AGRAWAL3.

  9. 9.VANRAJSINH JANAKSINH PARMAR

    Adv. GIRISH R. AGRAWAL3.

  10. 10.SHAKUNTALA JANAKSING PARMAR

    Adv. GIRISH R. AGRAWAL3.

  11. 11.ANJANABEN JANAKSINH PARMAR

    Adv. GIRISH R. AGRAWAL

  12. 12.ASHOKSINGH BHAGWANSING PARMAR

    Adv. GIRISH R. AGRAWAL

  13. 13.SURESNDRASINH BHAGWANSINH PARMAR

    Adv. GIRISH R. AGRAWAL

  14. 14.VANRAJSINH JANAKSINH PARMAR

    Adv. GIRISH R. AGRAWAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gauri GodseView PDF

    WP/11573/2019 – Summary Jaydevkumar Bharatsinh Parmar's writ petition challenging a trial court order that rejected his application to frame additional issues in probate proceedings was dismissed. The court found the impugned order was purely interlocutory and held that the petitioner could challenge it later in an appeal if the final decree was adverse, making writ intervention inappropriate under Article 227. The petition had remained pending due to incorrect CIS entries falsely showing the suit as "stayed by High Court," though no such stay order existed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gauri Godse

  4. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gauri GodseView PDF

  5. 05-May-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gauri Godse

  6. 22-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gauri GodseView PDF

  7. 29-Jul-2022

    For Orders (Due Matters)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik

  8. 22-Jul-2022

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. KarnikView PDF

  9. 22-Jul-2022

    For Orders (Due Matters)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik

  10. 21-Jul-2022

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. KarnikView PDF

  11. 20-Jul-2022

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Baban Deo

  12. 13-Jul-2022

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Baban DeoView PDF

  13. 05-Dec-2020

    Fresh Admission

    Hon'ble Justice Revati Mohite Dere

  14. 24-Feb-2020

    Hon'ble Justice Revati Mohite DereView PDF

  15. 24-Feb-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  16. 18-Jul-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/11573/2019

casestatus.in Summary

WP/11573/2019 – Summary Jaydevkumar Bharatsinh Parmar's writ petition challenging a trial court order that rejected his application to frame additional issues in probate proceedings was dismissed. The court found the impugned order was purely interlocutory and held that the petitioner could challenge it later in an appeal if the final decree was adverse, making writ intervention inappropriate under Article 227. The petition had remained pending due to incorrect CIS entries falsely showing the suit as "stayed by High Court," though no such stay order existed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case