SIPAI MURADABEN SULEMANBHAI vs SIPAI SULEMAN ANUBHAI Advocate - N V ASAL — 8/2021
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,39,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 27th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJBK080003182021
Next Hearing
27th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
8/2021
Filing Date
10-03-2021
Registration No
8/2021
Registration Date
10-03-2021
Court
TALUKA COURT, THARAD
Judge
3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SIPAI MURADABEN SULEMANBHAI
Adv. I A SHAIKH
Respondent(s)
SIPAI SULEMAN ANUBHAI Advocate - N V ASAL
Hearing History
Judge: 3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 09-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 09-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 12-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 18-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary The temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff has been rejected. The Additional Civil Judge found that while the plaintiff established a partly arguable case, she failed to demonstrate that the balance of convenience lay in her favor or that denying the injunction would cause irreparable losses. The court noted the plaintiff filed the suit 34 years after property transactions occurred in 1989-1991, provided insufficient evidence of her relationship to the deceased, and failed to explain the long delay. The defendant is recognized as a bona fide purchaser in lawful possession since 1991, with property properly registered in revenue records. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff has been rejected. The Additional Civil Judge found that while the plaintiff established a partly arguable case, she failed to demonstrate that the balance of convenience lay in her favor or that denying the injunction would cause irreparable losses. The court noted the plaintiff filed the suit 34 years after property transactions occurred in 1989-1991, provided insufficient evidence of her relationship to the deceased, and failed to explain the long delay. The defendant is recognized as a bona fide purchaser in lawful possession since 1991, with property properly registered in revenue records. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts