IKBALBHAI HASANBHAI VHORA vs JYOSTANABEN AMBALAL Advocate - R H SOLANKI — 23/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJKH030007672023

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

24th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

23/2023

Filing Date

27-02-2023

Registration No

23/2023

Registration Date

27-02-2023

Court

TALUKA COURT, MEHMEDABAD

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 9,

Petitioner(s)

IKBALBHAI HASANBHAI VHORA

Adv. K G VOHRA

Respondent(s)

JYOSTANABEN AMBALAL Advocate - R H SOLANKI

KAILASHBEN AMBALAL LALLUBHAI

DAKSHABEN AMABALALA LALLUBHAI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

06-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

23-01-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

19-12-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

20-11-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

16-10-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

22-11-2024
ORDER
22-11-2024
ORDER

Case Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's interim relief application in this civil suit concerning disputed agricultural land in Kheda district. The Principal Civil Judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, having filed the suit 37 years after the alleged 1986 sale agreement and lacking documentary proof of a valid sale deed or power of attorney from defendants. The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the Limitation Act and that the balance of convenience favored the defendants, whose names appear in revenue records as rightful owners and possessors of the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's interim relief application in this civil suit concerning disputed agricultural land in Kheda district. The Principal Civil Judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, having filed the suit 37 years after the alleged 1986 sale agreement and lacking documentary proof of a valid sale deed or power of attorney from defendants. The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the Limitation Act and that the balance of convenience favored the defendants, whose names appear in revenue records as rightful owners and possessors of the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, MEHMEDABAD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case