VIRABHAI JADAVBHAI CHUDASAMA vs MADHUBEN RANCHODBHAI MANDAVIYA Advocate - P D SOLANKI — 35/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 31. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 27th April 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJGS080007832025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

27th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

35/2025

Filing Date

19-07-2025

Registration No

35/2025

Registration Date

19-07-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, GIRGADHADA

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 31
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 Section 31,34,37,
IA/1/2025 Classification : INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION Section VIRABHAI JADAVBHAI CHUDASAMAMADHUBEN RANCHODBHAI MANDAVIYA

Petitioner(s)

VIRABHAI JADAVBHAI CHUDASAMA

Adv. M H BAMBHANIA

Respondent(s)

MADHUBEN RANCHODBHAI MANDAVIYA Advocate - P D SOLANKI

HITESHKUMAR DEVASHIBHAI PARMAR

Adv. K T RATHOD

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

08-04-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

18-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

09-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

16-02-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

31-01-2026

ISSUES

Interim Orders

31-01-2026
ORDER

Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction restraining defendants from interfering with agricultural land possession and transferring the property. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favor, or irreparable harm, as the suit lacked a prayer for permanent injunction and the defendants' registered sale deeds and revenue mutations were presumptively valid. Costs shall follow the final suit outcome. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction restraining defendants from interfering with agricultural land possession and transferring the property. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favor, or irreparable harm, as the suit lacked a prayer for permanent injunction and the defendants' registered sale deeds and revenue mutations were presumptively valid. Costs shall follow the final suit outcome. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, GIRGADHADA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case