MANJIBHAI JAMNADAS SAVANI vs BHAGVANBHAI KALUBHAI SAVANI Advocate - S S DODIYA — 109/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 151. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJBN090007052021
Next Hearing
10th June 2026
Filing Number
109/2021
Filing Date
20-05-2021
Registration No
109/2021
Registration Date
20-05-2021
Court
TALUKA COURT, UMRALA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MANJIBHAI JAMNADAS SAVANI
Adv. P L SONPAL, B P PARMAR
Respondent(s)
BHAGVANBHAI KALUBHAI SAVANI Advocate - S S DODIYA
KANJIBHAI KALUBHAI SAVANI
Adv. M V SOJITRA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 21-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 15-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 06-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 30-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
CASE SUMMARY: RCS/109/2021 Petitioner: Manjibhai Jamnadas Savani Respondents: Bhagvanbhai Kalubhai Savani (Respondent 1) and Kanjibhai Kalubhai Savani (Respondent 2) Order: Petition DISMISSED The petitioner sought a mandatory injunction restraining respondents from using a specific agricultural path through his property in Umrala village. The Principal Civil Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for interim relief. The court noted that prior court orders dated December 31, 1960, had already granted respondents the right to use the path for agricultural access, and the petitioner had not challenged those orders within the statutory period. Consequently, the petitioner lacked legal standing to prevent such established rights of way. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY: RCS/109/2021 Petitioner: Manjibhai Jamnadas Savani Respondents: Bhagvanbhai Kalubhai Savani (Respondent 1) and Kanjibhai Kalubhai Savani (Respondent 2) Order: Petition DISMISSED The petitioner sought a mandatory injunction restraining respondents from using a specific agricultural path through his property in Umrala village. The Principal Civil Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for interim relief. The court noted that prior court orders dated December 31, 1960, had already granted respondents the right to use the path for agricultural access, and the petitioner had not challenged those orders within the statutory period. Consequently, the petitioner lacked legal standing to prevent such established rights of way. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts