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
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
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
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts