NITESHBHAI KHODABHAI BAVALIYA vs PIPLI GRAM PANCHAYAT Advocate - J K SOMANI — 19/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJAH230002002024
Next Hearing
08th June 2026
Filing Number
19/2024
Filing Date
15-06-2024
Registration No
19/2024
Registration Date
15-06-2024
Court
Taluka Court, Dholera
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
NITESHBHAI KHODABHAI BAVALIYA
Adv. V K PARMAR, N D RAVAL
Respondent(s)
PIPLI GRAM PANCHAYAT Advocate - J K SOMANI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION
ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 03-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 25-03-2026 | ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION |
| 11-03-2026 | ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION |
| 06-03-2026 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION |
Interim Orders
Summary The Dholera Civil Court (dated 03/04/2026) dismissed the plaintiff's application for interim relief (temporary injunction). The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case regarding lawful possession of the disputed government grazing land where a hotel operates, and did not sufficiently prove irreparable loss. The court noted the plaintiff concealed material facts, including pending land-grabbing proceedings against them, and therefore held they were not entitled to interim protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Dholera Civil Court (dated 03/04/2026) dismissed the plaintiff's application for interim relief (temporary injunction). The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case regarding lawful possession of the disputed government grazing land where a hotel operates, and did not sufficiently prove irreparable loss. The court noted the plaintiff concealed material facts, including pending land-grabbing proceedings against them, and therefore held they were not entitled to interim protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts