RAJESHBHAI BALDEVBHAI PATEL vs BHARATBHAI KHUSHALBHAI GOHIL Advocate - A B DODIA — 62/2024
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 31,38. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
SPCS - SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJAH090016422024
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
Filing Number
62/2024
Filing Date
04-05-2024
Registration No
62/2024
Registration Date
10-05-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, SANAND
Judge
5-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAJESHBHAI BALDEVBHAI PATEL
Adv. G J MOMIN
Respondent(s)
BHARATBHAI KHUSHALBHAI GOHIL Advocate - A B DODIA
Hearing History
Judge: 5-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 11-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 13-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 30-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 19-11-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
CASE SUMMARY Special Civil Suit No. 62 of 2024 | Sanand Court | 07-02-2025 The court granted interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff in a mortgage dispute over agricultural land. The plaintiff had lent Rs. 2,15,000 to the defendant against a notarized English mortgage deed on the land (Survey No. 197, Village Mankol). Since the defendant failed to repay and did not appear in court despite service of notice, the court found a prima-facie case, balance of convenience favoring the plaintiff, and risk of irreparable loss. The defendant is now restrained from selling, transferring, or alienating the mortgaged property until final disposal of the suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY Special Civil Suit No. 62 of 2024 | Sanand Court | 07-02-2025 The court granted interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff in a mortgage dispute over agricultural land. The plaintiff had lent Rs. 2,15,000 to the defendant against a notarized English mortgage deed on the land (Survey No. 197, Village Mankol). Since the defendant failed to repay and did not appear in court despite service of notice, the court found a prima-facie case, balance of convenience favoring the plaintiff, and risk of irreparable loss. The defendant is now restrained from selling, transferring, or alienating the mortgaged property until final disposal of the suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts