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
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
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
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 | |
| 20-11-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 16-10-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
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.
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
Explore other courts