Shree Ram Transport Finance Co.LTD., Collection Manager Hitendrasinh Chatursinh Sarvaiya vs Sureshbhai Rajeshbhai Gamara Advocate - C R MEHTA — 15/2026

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

Case disposed

CR RA - CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION

CNR: GJBT010003432026

Filing Number

15/2026

Filing Date

27-Feb-2026

Registration No

15/2026

Registration Date

27-Feb-2026

Court

DISTRICT COURT, BOTAD

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 31-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 397
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

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

    Adv. K K SHEKH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sureshbhai Rajeshbhai Gamara Advocate - C R MEHTA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: CR R A 15/2026 Court Decision: The Sessions Judge at Botad rejected Shree Ram Transport Finance Company's revision application at the threshold, finding it unmaintainable. The trial court's order rejecting the company's application to exhibit three documents (marks 39/1 to 39/3) was deemed an interlocutory order, which cannot be challenged via revision under Section 397(2) CrPC. However, the applicant retains the right to adduce oral evidence and subsequently request document exhibition during trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 15/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CR R A 15/2026 Court Decision: The Sessions Judge at Botad rejected Shree Ram Transport Finance Company's revision application at the threshold, finding it unmaintainable. The trial court's order rejecting the company's application to exhibit three documents (marks 39/1 to 39/3) was deemed an interlocutory order, which cannot be challenged via revision under Section 397(2) CrPC. However, the applicant retains the right to adduce oral evidence and subsequently request document exhibition during trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case