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

Case disposed

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

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 47.1,

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

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

10-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, KALOL All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case