BHANUBEN RAMANBHAI SHIVABHAI vs RAMABHAI SHIVABHAI CHAUAHN Advocate - K G VOHRA — 119/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 31,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKH030045692022
Next Hearing
17th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
119/2022
Filing Date
02-12-2022
Registration No
119/2022
Registration Date
02-12-2022
Court
TALUKA COURT, MEHMEDABAD
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BHANUBEN RAMANBHAI SHIVABHAI
Adv. V D CHAUHAN
ALPABEN RAMANBHAI SHIVABHAI
Respondent(s)
RAMABHAI SHIVABHAI CHAUAHN Advocate - K G VOHRA
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 | |
| 04-10-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Regular Civil Suit No. 119 of 2022 | Mahemdavad Civil Court The court partially granted the plaintiffs' interim relief petition while partially rejecting the defendant's counterclaim. The court ordered that the defendant is restrained from selling, mortgaging, or transferring agricultural land (Survey No. 279, field no. 828) in village Ghodasar until final judgment. However, the court declined to grant relief regarding other disputed properties and directed both parties to maintain the status quo regarding possession of the contested lands. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Regular Civil Suit No. 119 of 2022 | Mahemdavad Civil Court The court partially granted the plaintiffs' interim relief petition while partially rejecting the defendant's counterclaim. The court ordered that the defendant is restrained from selling, mortgaging, or transferring agricultural land (Survey No. 279, field no. 828) in village Ghodasar until final judgment. However, the court declined to grant relief regarding other disputed properties and directed both parties to maintain the status quo regarding possession of the contested lands. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts