ASHOKKUMAR RATILAL MEWADA vs SARPANCHSHRI, GRAM PANCHAYAT GATHAMAN Advocate - B P RANAVASIYA — 32/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,38. Status: Written Statement/Reply. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJBK020089062025
Filing Number
32/2025
Filing Date
25-Mar-2025
Registration No
32/2025
Registration Date
25-Mar-2025
Court
CIVIL COURT PALANPUR
Judge
1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
Last updated 23-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.ASHOKKUMAR RATILAL MEWADA
Adv. B H PARADIYA
Respondent(s)
-
1.SARPANCHSHRI, GRAM PANCHAYAT GATHAMAN Advocate - B P RANAVASIYA
-
2.COLLECTORSHRI, BANASKANTHA
Adv. D H CHAPIYA
-
3.DEPUTY COLLECTORSHRI, PALANPUR
Adv. D H CHAPIYA
-
4.PANCHAL JAYANTILAL LAXMANDAS
Adv. G R TRIVEDI
Case History
-
19-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
21-Apr-2026
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
08-Apr-2026
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
09-Mar-2026
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
11-Feb-2026
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
16-Jan-2026
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
20-Dec-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
06-Nov-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
08-Oct-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
24-Sep-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
16-Sep-2025
OrderView PDF
Case Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's application for interim injunction seeking to prevent removal of construction on a plot in Gathaman village, Banaskantha. The court found the plaintiff lacked a prima facie case because the plot's 2011 Sanad (title deed) was validly cancelled by revenue authorities in 2013 due to irregular auction procedures and conflicting documentation with the earlier 1983 Sanad. Additionally, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss elements also favored the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Sep-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
10-Sep-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
29-Aug-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
25-Aug-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
20-Aug-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
14-Jul-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
13-Jun-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
23-Apr-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
25-Mar-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 32/2025
Case Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's application for interim injunction seeking to prevent removal of construction on a plot in Gathaman village, Banaskantha. The court found the plaintiff lacked a prima facie case because the plot's 2011 Sanad (title deed) was validly cancelled by revenue authorities in 2013 due to irregular auction procedures and conflicting documentation with the earlier 1983 Sanad. Additionally, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss elements also favored the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts