DEVRAJBHAI NANJIBHAI CHUDASAMA vs MAMALATDAR SHREE, VANTHALI Advocate - A G P — 7/2025

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,36. Status: Plaintiff Evidence. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.

Plaintiff Evidence Next hearing 10-Jun-2026 this date has passed

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJJN100000922025

Filing Number

7/2025

Filing Date

18-Jan-2025

Registration No

7/2025

Registration Date

18-Jan-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, VANTHALI

Judge

2-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Last updated 21-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,36

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DEVRAJBHAI NANJIBHAI CHUDASAMA

    Adv. N G TRAMBADIA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MAMALATDAR SHREE, VANTHALI Advocate - A G P

  2. 2.CIRCLE OFFICER SHREE, VANTHALI

    Adv. A G P

  3. 3.CITY TALATI SHREE, VANTHALI

Case History

  1. 10-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 28-Jan-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 18-Dec-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 06-Dec-2025

    OrderView PDF

    Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction against an encroachment removal order. The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as he could not provide proper documentation proving his legal right to the disputed land (Revenue Survey No. 215/316) or demonstrate ownership. The court found inconsistencies in the plaintiff's claims and noted that merely paying property tax does not create legal rights over land. Each party bears its own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  7. 06-Dec-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  8. 01-Dec-2025

    Order On Injuction Application

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  9. 29-Nov-2025

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  10. 07-Nov-2025

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  11. 17-Oct-2025

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  12. 03-Oct-2025

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  13. 06-Sep-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  14. 14-Aug-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  15. 25-Jul-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  16. 04-Jul-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  17. 13-Jun-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  18. 22-May-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  19. 25-Apr-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  20. 28-Mar-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  21. 28-Feb-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  22. 14-Feb-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  23. 29-Jan-2025

    Summons - Notice

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  24. 18-Jan-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 18-Jan-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 7/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction against an encroachment removal order. The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as he could not provide proper documentation proving his legal right to the disputed land (Revenue Survey No. 215/316) or demonstrate ownership. The court found inconsistencies in the plaintiff's claims and noted that merely paying property tax does not create legal rights over land. Each party bears its own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case