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

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

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

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 Section 31,38

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

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

07-02-2025
ORDER

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SANAND All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case