PRAKASHCHANDRA KESHAVBHAI KACHHADIYA vs BHIKHABHAI DAYABHAI SOJITRA Advocate - K J GAUSWAMI — 5/2022

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,36,38,39,. Status: DEFENDANT EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 04th April 2026.

SPCS - SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJJN020029382022

DEFENDANT EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

04th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

5/2022

Filing Date

19-03-2022

Registration No

5/2022

Registration Date

19-03-2022

Court

CIVIL COURT JUNAGADH

Judge

2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Acts & Sections

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 Section 34,36,38,39,

Petitioner(s)

PRAKASHCHANDRA KESHAVBHAI KACHHADIYA

Adv. J H DHAMANI

Respondent(s)

BHIKHABHAI DAYABHAI SOJITRA Advocate - K J GAUSWAMI

GORDHANBHAI DAYABHAI SOJITRA

Adv. K J GAUSWAMI

ARVINDBHAI BHIKHABHAI SOJITRA

Adv. K J GAUSWAMI

HARSUKHBHAI GORDHANBHAI SOJITRA

Adv. K J GAUSWAMI

KAMLESHBHAI GORDHANBHAI SOJITRA

Adv. K J GAUSWAMI

Hearing History

Judge: 2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

06-03-2026

DEFENDANT EVIDENCE

28-02-2026

DEFENDANT EVIDENCE

16-02-2026

DEFENDANT EVIDENCE

09-02-2026

DEFENDANT EVIDENCE

17-01-2026

DEFENDANT EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

19-04-2023
ORDER
22-04-2025
ORDER

Court Order Summary Case: SPCS No.05/2022 | Court: Additional Senior Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh | Date: 22/04/2025 Outcome Application REJECTED: The defendants' application seeking rejection of the plaintiff's plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC has been rejected. The suit will proceed to trial. Key Points - The plaintiff adequately pleaded a cause of action based on a registered 1983 sale deed, documented revenue entries, and alleged forcible dispossession on 05.03.2022. - The suit is not barred by limitation (falls under Article 65 of the Limitation Act with a 12-year period; dispossession occurred within this timeframe). - The court emphasized that defendant's written statement and factual disputes cannot be considered when deciding plaint rejection under Order 7, Rule 11—only plaint averments matter at this threshold stage. - The plaint discloses sufficient material facts to warrant judicial determination; whether the plaintiff ultimately succeeds is a matter for full trial, not preliminary dismissal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Order Summary Case: SPCS No.05/2022 | Court: Additional Senior Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh | Date: 22/04/2025 Outcome Application REJECTED: The defendants' application seeking rejection of the plaintiff's plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC has been rejected. The suit will proceed to trial. Key Points - The plaintiff adequately pleaded a cause of action based on a registered 1983 sale deed, documented revenue entries, and alleged forcible dispossession on 05.03.2022. - The suit is not barred by limitation (falls under Article 65 of the Limitation Act with a 12-year period; dispossession occurred within this timeframe). - The court emphasized that defendant's written statement and factual disputes cannot be considered when deciding plaint rejection under Order 7, Rule 11—only plaint averments matter at this threshold stage. - The plaint discloses sufficient material facts to warrant judicial determination; whether the plaintiff ultimately succeeds is a matter for full trial, not preliminary dismissal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CIVIL COURT JUNAGADH All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case