BHARATBHAI GIRDHARBHAI vs PRABHUDAS RANCHHODBHAI MAKVANA Advocate - S R RAJPUT — 41/2024
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 37,38. Status: Plaintiff Evidence. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJBH050009072024
Filing Number
41/2024
Filing Date
20-May-2024
Registration No
41/2024
Registration Date
20-May-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, VAGRA
Judge
1-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Last updated 12-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.BHARATBHAI GIRDHARBHAI
Adv. B R CHOKSHI
-
2.DINESHBHAI GIRDHARBHAI
-
3.MINABEN D/O GIRDHARBHAI NAGJIBHAI AND W/O NAGINBHAI REVDAS ROHIT
-
4.SHARDABEN D/O GIRDHARBHAI NAGJIBHAI AND W/O PUNAMBHAI BABARBHAI ROHIT
Respondent(s)
-
1.PRABHUDAS RANCHHODBHAI MAKVANA Advocate - S R RAJPUT
-
2.KARSHANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKAVAN
Adv. S R RAJPUT
-
3.GIRDHARBHAI RANCHHODBHAI
Adv. S R RAJPUT
-
4.REVABEN D/O RANCHHODBHAI NATHABHAI
Adv. S R RAJPUT
-
5.GHANSHYAMBHAI GAMANSANG JADAV
Adv. S R RAJPUT
Case History
-
16-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
11-May-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Apr-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
16-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Case Summary: RCS 41/2024 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction and ordered costs to be paid in the cause of the suit. Key Facts: Plaintiffs claimed a 1/5th share in agricultural property in Bharuch District as heirs of Ghanuben (who predeceased in 1999). They alleged defendants fraudulently omitted her name from revenue records and later sold the entire property to defendant no. 5 via registered deed in October 2023, threatening to transfer it to third parties. Court's Reasoning: The court found plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience did not favor them, and there was insufficient evidence of irreparable loss. Since defendant no. 5 was a bona fide purchaser in possession under a registered deed, restraining him without strong proof would be improper. The court noted plaintiffs did not implead defendants 1-4 (the actual sellers) in the injunction application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
Issues
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
24-Feb-2026
Hearing On Injunction Application
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
20-Jan-2026
Hearing On Injunction Application
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
16-Dec-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
25-Nov-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
04-Nov-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
30-Sep-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
19-Aug-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
15-Jul-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Jun-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
02-May-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
08-Apr-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
04-Mar-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
28-Jan-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
06-Jan-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
25-Nov-2024
Written Statement/Reply
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
14-Oct-2024
Written Statement/Reply
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Sep-2024
Summons - Notice
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
05-Aug-2024
Summons - Notice
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
08-Jul-2024
Summons - Notice
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
28-May-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-May-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 41/2024
Case Summary: RCS 41/2024 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction and ordered costs to be paid in the cause of the suit. Key Facts: Plaintiffs claimed a 1/5th share in agricultural property in Bharuch District as heirs of Ghanuben (who predeceased in 1999). They alleged defendants fraudulently omitted her name from revenue records and later sold the entire property to defendant no. 5 via registered deed in October 2023, threatening to transfer it to third parties. Court's Reasoning: The court found plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience did not favor them, and there was insufficient evidence of irreparable loss. Since defendant no. 5 was a bona fide purchaser in possession under a registered deed, restraining him without strong proof would be improper. The court noted plaintiffs did not implead defendants 1-4 (the actual sellers) in the injunction application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts