LAXMIBEN KALAJI THAKOR W/O VIRAMJI NEMAJI TAJKOR vs ISHWARBHAI KARASANBHAI DESAI Advocate - A V SHAH — 2/2020
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,38,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 27th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJBK160001712020
Next Hearing
27th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2/2020
Filing Date
29-01-2020
Registration No
2/2020
Registration Date
29-01-2020
Court
TALUKA COURT, SIHORI
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
LAXMIBEN KALAJI THAKOR W/O VIRAMJI NEMAJI TAJKOR
Adv. D M JADAV
Respondent(s)
ISHWARBHAI KARASANBHAI DESAI Advocate - A V SHAH
AMARATBHAI SANKARBHAI JOITARAM PATEL
Adv. P B JOSHI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 09-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 16-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 05-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 08-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary: The plaintiff's application for interim injunction (stay order) in Regular Civil Suit No. 2/2020 has been dismissed/denied. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case regarding ownership of the disputed agricultural land and that the balance of convenience did not favor granting the interim relief sought. The court ruled that defendant No. 2 has valid purchase rights under the registered sale deed, and granting the injunction would cause undue hardship to the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The plaintiff's application for interim injunction (stay order) in Regular Civil Suit No. 2/2020 has been dismissed/denied. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case regarding ownership of the disputed agricultural land and that the balance of convenience did not favor granting the interim relief sought. The court ruled that defendant No. 2 has valid purchase rights under the registered sale deed, and granting the injunction would cause undue hardship to the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts