KOLI RAYSANGJI ISHAJI vs TRIVEDI DINESHKUMAR SHIVRAMBHAI Advocate - B C BAROT — 75/2015
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 031,034,038. Status: DEFENDANT EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 27th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJBK090001012015
Next Hearing
27th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
75/2015
Filing Date
19-02-2015
Registration No
75/2015
Registration Date
19-02-2015
Court
TALUKA COURT, DHANERA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KOLI RAYSANGJI ISHAJI
Adv. H J SUMARA
Respondent(s)
TRIVEDI DINESHKUMAR SHIVRAMBHAI Advocate - B C BAROT
SOLANKI KANSIH VIRSIH
Adv. P J TRIVEDI
PATEL VIHABHAI RUDABHAI
Adv. P J TRIVEDI
DESAI BHURABHAI DANABHAI
Adv. P J TRIVEDI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-04-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE | |
| 09-03-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE | |
| 09-02-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE | |
| 07-01-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE | |
| 03-12-2025 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Plaintiff's Appeal (RCS 75-15) - DISMISSED The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal challenging a lower court order regarding disputed land ownership and sale transactions. The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction, as required by settled legal principles. The court found that the plaintiff had not properly substantiated their claim to the contested property and therefore could not proceed without meeting this foundational requirement, rendering the balance of convenience and irreparable injury arguments immaterial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Plaintiff's Appeal (RCS 75-15) - DISMISSED The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal challenging a lower court order regarding disputed land ownership and sale transactions. The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction, as required by settled legal principles. The court found that the plaintiff had not properly substantiated their claim to the contested property and therefore could not proceed without meeting this foundational requirement, rendering the balance of convenience and irreparable injury arguments immaterial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts