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
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
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
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
ISSUES
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts