Vrujlal Narshibhai Chaniyara vs Bhagvanji Govabhai Chaniyara Advocate - J C VIRANI — 35/2018
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34. Status: ISSUES. Next hearing: 30th June 2026.
SPCS - SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJJM030011842018
Next Hearing
30th June 2026
Filing Number
35/2018
Filing Date
24-09-2018
Registration No
35/2018
Registration Date
24-09-2018
Court
TALUKA COURT, LALPUR
Judge
2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vrujlal Narshibhai Chaniyara
Adv. M.T.NANAVATI
Arvindbhai Chhaganbhai Chaniyara
Adv. M.T.NANAVATI
Vinodbhai Chhaganbhai Chaniyara
Mahendrabhai Chhaganbhai Chaniyara
Kantilal Chhganbhai Chaniyara
Nanduben Chhganbhai Chaniyara
Hasmukhbhai Ambabhai Chaniyara
P O A for 1 to 7 and himself Shantilal Narshibhai Chaniyara
Adv. M.T.NANAVATI
Respondent(s)
Bhagvanji Govabhai Chaniyara Advocate - J C VIRANI
Savitaben Dayabhai Chaniyara
Adv. J C VIRANI
Talati Cum Mantri - Jamjodhpur
Mamlatdar - Jamjodhpur
Government of Gujarat
Adv. S A PATEL
Hearing History
Judge: 2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-06-2026 | ISSUES |
| 21-04-2026 | ISSUES |
| 06-04-2026 | ISSUES |
| 16-03-2026 | ISSUES |
| 27-01-2026 | ISSUES |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Special Civil Suit No. 35/2018 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for interim injunction on 22 July 2025. Key Points: The plaintiffs sought to prevent the Mamlatdar (revenue officer) from making revenue record entries regarding encroachment removal. The court found no jurisdiction to grant the interim injunction because: (1) the original suit does not seek permanent injunction, making interim injunction inappropriate; (2) alternative remedy exists under Section 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code; and (3) Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act prohibits injunction when equally efficacious relief is available through other proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Special Civil Suit No. 35/2018 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for interim injunction on 22 July 2025. Key Points: The plaintiffs sought to prevent the Mamlatdar (revenue officer) from making revenue record entries regarding encroachment removal. The court found no jurisdiction to grant the interim injunction because: (1) the original suit does not seek permanent injunction, making interim injunction inappropriate; (2) alternative remedy exists under Section 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code; and (3) Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act prohibits injunction when equally efficacious relief is available through other proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts