KIRAN RAMAJIBHAI CHAPALA vs SARPANCH SHREE, SARDARGADH — 37/2024
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,38. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 01st July 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJJN100005092024
Next Hearing
01st July 2026
Filing Number
37/2024
Filing Date
16-07-2024
Registration No
37/2024
Registration Date
16-07-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, VANTHALI
Judge
2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KIRAN RAMAJIBHAI CHAPALA
Adv. M M SAMA
Respondent(s)
SARPANCH SHREE, SARDARGADH
STATE OF GUJARAT
Hearing History
Judge: 2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-05-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 08-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 11-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 04-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 31-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case No.: R.C.S 37/24 | Court: Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Vanthali, Junagadh | Date: 30 July 2025 The plaintiff's application for temporary injunction to restrain removal of his pan/bidi shop encroachment on government pasturage land (Survey No. 286) was rejected. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as he admitted to unauthorized encroachment on government land but produced no documents proving any legal right to occupy it. Consequently, the court declined to consider balance of convenience or irreparable loss arguments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case No.: R.C.S 37/24 | Court: Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Vanthali, Junagadh | Date: 30 July 2025 The plaintiff's application for temporary injunction to restrain removal of his pan/bidi shop encroachment on government pasturage land (Survey No. 286) was rejected. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as he admitted to unauthorized encroachment on government land but produced no documents proving any legal right to occupy it. Consequently, the court declined to consider balance of convenience or irreparable loss arguments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts