PARESH RAGHUBHAI PATEL vs AMRUTBHAI KALIDAS VAKIL ON BEHALF OF SHIVAM CORPORATION NAMED PARTNERSHIP FIRM — 17/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 47.1,. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 10th April 2026.
CMA SC - CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION - SR/CIVIL/SMALL CAUSE COU
CNR: GJGN050004362026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
17/2026
Filing Date
04-02-2026
Registration No
17/2026
Registration Date
04-02-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, KALOL
Judge
10-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PARESH RAGHUBHAI PATEL
Adv. A K PANDYA
BHARAT RAGHUBHAI PATEL
DHARMENDRA RAGHUBHAI PATEL
KAMLABEN RAGHUBHAI PATEL
Respondent(s)
AMRUTBHAI KALIDAS VAKIL ON BEHALF OF SHIVAM CORPORATION NAMED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
RANCHHODBHAI AMBALAL PATEL
Hearing History
Judge: 10-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
URGENT HEARING
URGENT HEARING
URGENT HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 16-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 09-03-2026 | URGENT HEARING | |
| 03-03-2026 | URGENT HEARING | |
| 02-03-2026 | URGENT HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Additional Civil Judge, Kalol rejected the applicants' review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, holding that the applicants are necessary and proper parties to the underlying suit (RCS 201/2001) challenging alleged fraudulent property transfers, since they have admitted purchasing the disputed properties and have direct interest in the matter. The court found no error in the previous order joining them as defendants and reasoned that questions about suppression of facts and transaction validity must be decided during trial on evidence, not in review proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Additional Civil Judge, Kalol rejected the applicants' review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, holding that the applicants are necessary and proper parties to the underlying suit (RCS 201/2001) challenging alleged fraudulent property transfers, since they have admitted purchasing the disputed properties and have direct interest in the matter. The court found no error in the previous order joining them as defendants and reasoned that questions about suppression of facts and transaction validity must be decided during trial on evidence, not in review proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts