Shree Ram Transport Finance Co.LTD., Collection Manager Hitendrasinh Chatursinh Sarvaiya vs Sanjaybhai Gobarbhai Rojara Advocate - R C PRAJAPATI — 16/2026

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

CR RA - CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION

CNR: GJBT010003442026

Case disposed

Filing Number

16/2026

Filing Date

27-02-2026

Registration No

16/2026

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)

Sanjaybhai Gobarbhai Rojara Advocate - R C PRAJAPATI

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: Shree Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. Sanjaybhai Gobrabhai Rojara (CR RA 16/2026) The Sessions Judge rejected Shree Ram Transport Finance's revision application challenging the trial court's order rejecting documents for exhibition. The court held the trial court's order was interlocutory in nature and hence non-revisable under CrPC Section 397(2), as exhibiting documents merely constitutes a procedural step that does not finally determine parties' rights or liabilities. However, the court allowed the applicant to adduce oral evidence through witnesses to subsequently exhibit the disputed documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Shree Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. Sanjaybhai Gobrabhai Rojara (CR RA 16/2026) The Sessions Judge rejected Shree Ram Transport Finance's revision application challenging the trial court's order rejecting documents for exhibition. The court held the trial court's order was interlocutory in nature and hence non-revisable under CrPC Section 397(2), as exhibiting documents merely constitutes a procedural step that does not finally determine parties' rights or liabilities. However, the court allowed the applicant to adduce oral evidence through witnesses to subsequently exhibit the disputed documents. 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