JYOTIBEN RUPESHKUMAR AMIN vs MAHESHBHAI NARSINHBHAI AMIN Advocate - A K MANSURI — 128/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 35,39,. Status: HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION. Next hearing: 04th May 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJGN030010862022
Next Hearing
04th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
128/2022
Filing Date
18-08-2022
Registration No
128/2022
Registration Date
18-08-2022
Court
TALUKA COURT, DEHGAM
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
JYOTIBEN RUPESHKUMAR AMIN
Adv. D J RAJGOR
JYOTIBEN RUPESHKUMAR AMIN POA HOLDER YESHABEN RUPESHKUMAR AMIN
PURTIBEN RUPESHKUMAR AMIN
ABHISHEK RUPESHKUMAR AMIN
Respondent(s)
MAHESHBHAI NARSINHBHAI AMIN Advocate - A K MANSURI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION | |
| 12-01-2026 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION | |
| 24-11-2025 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION | |
| 15-09-2025 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION | |
| 28-07-2025 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION |
Interim Orders
CASE SUMMARY The defendant's application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. The court held that the plaint discloses a sufficient cause of action, as the plaintiffs clearly stated that the cause of action arose when they issued a public notice seeking a title clearance certificate and the defendant filed objections in response. The court also distinguished the case from cited Supreme Court precedents involving registered documents, noting that the partition deed under challenge is unregistered, and therefore limitation arguments based on those judgments were inapplicable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY The defendant's application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. The court held that the plaint discloses a sufficient cause of action, as the plaintiffs clearly stated that the cause of action arose when they issued a public notice seeking a title clearance certificate and the defendant filed objections in response. The court also distinguished the case from cited Supreme Court precedents involving registered documents, noting that the partition deed under challenge is unregistered, and therefore limitation arguments based on those judgments were inapplicable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts