AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF SHAHPOORJI PALONJI ENERGY GUJARAT PVT LTD vs NIMUBEN URFE NAYANABEN D/O SHRI BHAGVAN DUDA SOSA W/O HARESHBHAI URFE RAJKUMAR KARSHANBHAI VADHER Advocate - P P BHATT — 3/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

RCA - REGULAR CIVIL APPEAL

CNR: GJGS090000462025

Filing Number

3/2025

Filing Date

19-Feb-2025

Registration No

3/2025

Registration Date

19-Feb-2025

Court

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - KODINAR

Judge

1-2nd Addl District Judge

Decision Date

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 96

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF SHAHPOORJI PALONJI ENERGY GUJARAT PVT LTD

    Adv. P B ADHYARU

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NIMUBEN URFE NAYANABEN D/O SHRI BHAGVAN DUDA SOSA W/O HARESHBHAI URFE RAJKUMAR KARSHANBHAI VADHER Advocate - P P BHATT

  2. 2.UKABHAI DUDABHAI SOSA

    Adv. A P VALA

  3. 3.AJAYKUMAR BABUBHAI PARMAR

    Adv. H G RATHOD

  4. 4.SANJAYKUMAR BABUBHAI PARMAR

    Adv. H G RATHOD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: RCA No-03/2025 (Shahpoorji Palonji Energy Gujarat Pvt Ltd) Court Decision: The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment dated 13/11/2024, which had granted the plaintiff's partition suit claim. The appellate court found the plaintiff's case barred by the law of limitation and lacked valid grounds for the relief sought. Key Reasoning: The court determined that the plaintiff (Nimuben) failed to establish her inheritance rights in the disputed agricultural land within the statutory limitation period. The defendants (land purchasers in 2006 and 2010) qualified as bona fide purchasers for value without notice, having acquired valid registered sale deeds. The court rejected the claim that registered transfer deeds could be invalidated after 14-20 years, particularly where purchasers had exercised uninterrupted possession and made revenue payments, holding such claims are barred by limitation law and established legal principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Addl District Judge

  4. 30-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    2nd Addl District Judge

  5. 18-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    2nd Addl District Judge

  6. 07-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    2nd Addl District Judge

  7. 25-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    2nd Addl District Judge

  8. 13-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    2nd Addl District Judge

  9. 10-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    2nd Addl District Judge

  10. 17-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  11. 03-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  12. 06-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  13. 03-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  14. 16-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  15. 09-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  16. 29-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  17. 15-Nov-2025

    Reply

    3rd Addl District Judge

  18. 01-Nov-2025

    Reply

    3rd Addl District Judge

  19. 04-Oct-2025

    Reply

    3rd Addl District Judge

  20. 15-Sep-2025

    Reply

    3rd Addl District Judge

  21. 01-Sep-2025

    Reply

    3rd Addl District Judge

  22. 18-Aug-2025

    Reply

    3rd Addl District Judge

  23. 05-Aug-2025

    Admission/Urgent Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  24. 22-Jul-2025

    Admission/Urgent Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  25. 14-Jul-2025

    Admission/Urgent Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  26. 07-Jul-2025

    Admission/Urgent Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  27. 23-Jun-2025

    Admission/Urgent Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  28. 13-Jun-2025

    Admission/Urgent Hearing

    4th Addl District Judge

  29. 15-May-2025

    Admission/Urgent Hearing

    Addl. District Judge

  30. 14-May-2025

    Admission/Urgent Hearing

    Addl. District Judge

  31. 09-May-2025

    Reply

    Addl. District Judge

  32. 01-May-2025

    Reply

    Addl. District Judge

  33. 15-Apr-2025

    Reply

    Addl. District Judge

  34. 29-Mar-2025

    Reply

    Addl. District Judge

  35. 24-Mar-2025

    Reply

    Addl. District Judge

  36. 06-Mar-2025

    Reply

    Addl. District Judge

  37. 03-Mar-2025

    Reply

    Addl. District Judge

  38. 19-Feb-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  39. 19-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 3/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RCA No-03/2025 (Shahpoorji Palonji Energy Gujarat Pvt Ltd) Court Decision: The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment dated 13/11/2024, which had granted the plaintiff's partition suit claim. The appellate court found the plaintiff's case barred by the law of limitation and lacked valid grounds for the relief sought. Key Reasoning: The court determined that the plaintiff (Nimuben) failed to establish her inheritance rights in the disputed agricultural land within the statutory limitation period. The defendants (land purchasers in 2006 and 2010) qualified as bona fide purchasers for value without notice, having acquired valid registered sale deeds. The court rejected the claim that registered transfer deeds could be invalidated after 14-20 years, particularly where purchasers had exercised uninterrupted possession and made revenue payments, holding such claims are barred by limitation law and established legal principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case