RAMABHAI PUNABHAI CHUDASAMA vs VARJANGBHAI PUNABHAI CHUDASAMA Advocate - D H PAMPANIYA — 20/2024

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 6. Status: Plaintiff Evidence. Next hearing: 06th May 2026.

Plaintiff Evidence Next hearing 06-May-2026 this date has passed

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJGS050001662024

Filing Number

20/2024

Filing Date

05-Feb-2024

Registration No

20/2024

Registration Date

05-Feb-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Last updated 21-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 6
Code of Civil Procedure Section 39(1),(2),151

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAMABHAI PUNABHAI CHUDASAMA

    Adv. H J VAZA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VARJANGBHAI PUNABHAI CHUDASAMA Advocate - D H PAMPANIYA

  2. 2.BHOJABHAI PUNABHAI CHUDASAMA

    Adv. D H PAMPANIYA

Case History

  1. 06-May-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 20-Mar-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 19-Jan-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 11-Dec-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 13-Nov-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 17-Oct-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 20-Aug-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 23-Jul-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 02-Jul-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 18-Jun-2025

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction (Ankik-5) seeking relief regarding agricultural land ownership. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury—the three essential requirements for granting temporary injunctions. Consequently, the court ruled that the application lacked legal merit and dismissed it accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  12. 18-Jun-2025

    Issues

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 08-May-2025

    Order On Injuction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 03-May-2025

    Order On Injuction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 29-Mar-2025

    Order On Injuction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 27-Jan-2025

    Order On Injuction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 02-Dec-2024

    Order On Injuction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 11-Nov-2024

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 21-Oct-2024

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 09-Oct-2024

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 18-Sep-2024

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 21-Aug-2024

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 31-Jul-2024

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 03-Jul-2024

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  25. 12-Jun-2024

    Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  26. 24-Apr-2024

    Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  27. 26-Mar-2024

    Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  28. 05-Mar-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  29. 05-Feb-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  30. 05-Feb-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 20/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction (Ankik-5) seeking relief regarding agricultural land ownership. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury—the three essential requirements for granting temporary injunctions. Consequently, the court ruled that the application lacked legal merit and dismissed it accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case