DILIPBHAI CHOTABHAI PATEL vs SHARDABEN RAMNABHAI MANGALBHAI RATHOD — 42/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 22,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKH030005882022
Next Hearing
17th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
42/2022
Filing Date
26-04-2022
Registration No
42/2022
Registration Date
26-04-2022
Court
TALUKA COURT, MEHMEDABAD
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DILIPBHAI CHOTABHAI PATEL
Adv. A A DABHI
Respondent(s)
SHARDABEN RAMNABHAI MANGALBHAI RATHOD
KALABHAI RAMANBHAI RATHOD
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 23-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 19-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 14-11-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 10-10-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal (Section 5 revision petition) challenging the first instance judgment. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite grounds for revision, including: lack of proper documentation of possession of the disputed property, failure to demonstrate the agreement was properly executed as alleged, absence of supporting evidence (such as photographs or receipts), and insufficient evidence of payment made to defendants. The court upheld the lower court's order that defendants deliver the property to plaintiff only upon completion of title clearance, with the agreement remaining valid until then. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal (Section 5 revision petition) challenging the first instance judgment. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite grounds for revision, including: lack of proper documentation of possession of the disputed property, failure to demonstrate the agreement was properly executed as alleged, absence of supporting evidence (such as photographs or receipts), and insufficient evidence of payment made to defendants. The court upheld the lower court's order that defendants deliver the property to plaintiff only upon completion of title clearance, with the agreement remaining valid until then. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts