MANSINGBHAI KALUBHAI BARIYA vs VALSINGBHAI KALUBHAI BARIYA Advocate - P M PADHIYAR, S M RAVAT — 3/2024
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,35,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 08th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJDH100001172024
Next Hearing
08th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
3/2024
Filing Date
09-02-2024
Registration No
3/2024
Registration Date
09-02-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, SANJELI
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MANSINGBHAI KALUBHAI BARIYA
Adv. R B BHAVSAR
Respondent(s)
VALSINGBHAI KALUBHAI BARIYA Advocate - P M PADHIYAR, S M RAVAT
LALSINGBHAI KALUBHAI BARIYA
Adv. M M PRAJAPATI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
ISSUES
ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 07-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 19-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 06-02-2026 | ISSUES | |
| 15-01-2026 | ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: The plaintiff's application for interim injunction was rejected. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, as the suit land is registered in defendant no. 1's name in revenue records and the plaintiff provided insufficient documentary evidence of co-ownership. The court also ruled that injunction cannot be granted against the legal title holder and that the balance of convenience and irreparable loss factors did not favor the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: The plaintiff's application for interim injunction was rejected. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, as the suit land is registered in defendant no. 1's name in revenue records and the plaintiff provided insufficient documentary evidence of co-ownership. The court also ruled that injunction cannot be granted against the legal title holder and that the balance of convenience and irreparable loss factors did not favor the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts