Shree Ram Transport Finance Co.LTD., Collection Manager Hitendrasinh Chatursinh Sarvaiya vs Shivkubhai Hakubhai Khachar Advocate - D B SHEKHALIYA — 13/2026

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 397. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 23rd March 2026.

CR RA - CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION

CNR: GJBT010003412026

Case disposed

Filing Number

13/2026

Filing Date

27-02-2026

Registration No

13/2026

Registration Date

27-02-2026

Court

DISTRICT COURT, BOTAD

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Decision Date

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Section 397
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

Shree Ram Transport Finance Co.LTD., Collection Manager Hitendrasinh Chatursinh Sarvaiya

Adv. K K SHEKH

Respondent(s)

Shivkubhai Hakubhai Khachar Advocate - D B SHEKHALIYA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

23-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

23-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary: CR R A 13/2026 The Sessions Judge at Botad rejected Shree Ram Transport Finance Co.'s revision application challenging the trial court's order denying admission of four documents (marks 38/1-38/4) into evidence. The court held that the trial court's rejection order was an interlocutory order (provisional/interim in nature) and therefore not subject to revision under Section 397(2) of the CrPC, as it does not finally decide parties' rights. However, the applicant retains the right to introduce these documents through witness examination during trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CR R A 13/2026 The Sessions Judge at Botad rejected Shree Ram Transport Finance Co.'s revision application challenging the trial court's order denying admission of four documents (marks 38/1-38/4) into evidence. The court held that the trial court's rejection order was an interlocutory order (provisional/interim in nature) and therefore not subject to revision under Section 397(2) of the CrPC, as it does not finally decide parties' rights. However, the applicant retains the right to introduce these documents through witness examination during trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

DISTRICT COURT, BOTAD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case