Shree Ram Transport Finance Co.LTD., Collection Manager Hitendrasinh Chatursinh Sarvaiya vs Vijaybhai Popatbhai Gamara — 14/2026

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

CR RA - CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION

CNR: GJBT010003422026

Case disposed

Filing Number

14/2026

Filing Date

27-02-2026

Registration No

14/2026

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)

Vijaybhai Popatbhai Gamara

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

23-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

NOTICE TO OPPONENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

23-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary: CRR A 14/2026 Decision: The Sessions Court rejected Shree Ram Transport Finance Co.'s revision application at the threshold, holding that the trial court's order rejecting document exhibits was an interlocutory order against which revision is not maintainable under Section 397(2) CrPC. Key Reasoning: The court determined that admitting or rejecting documents during trial is procedural and temporary in nature—it doesn't finally decide parties' rights or liabilities. Since the trial court's rejection didn't conclusively affect the complainant's substantive rights (the documents could still be exhibited through witness examination later), the order was interlocutory and thus non-revisable. However, the applicant retains the right to adduce oral evidence and subsequently request document exhibition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRR A 14/2026 Decision: The Sessions Court rejected Shree Ram Transport Finance Co.'s revision application at the threshold, holding that the trial court's order rejecting document exhibits was an interlocutory order against which revision is not maintainable under Section 397(2) CrPC. Key Reasoning: The court determined that admitting or rejecting documents during trial is procedural and temporary in nature—it doesn't finally decide parties' rights or liabilities. Since the trial court's rejection didn't conclusively affect the complainant's substantive rights (the documents could still be exhibited through witness examination later), the order was interlocutory and thus non-revisable. However, the applicant retains the right to adduce oral evidence and subsequently request document exhibition. 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