DINESHBHAI ABHESINH SOLANKI vs MANIBHAI SAVABHAI BARAIYA — 40/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 31. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 09th July 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKH080003632020
Next Hearing
09th July 2026
Filing Number
40/2020
Filing Date
18-09-2020
Registration No
40/2020
Registration Date
18-09-2020
Court
TALUKA COURT, KATHLAL
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DINESHBHAI ABHESINH SOLANKI
Adv. K.R.DABHI
Respondent(s)
MANIBHAI SAVABHAI BARAIYA
SHRIMIALI GIRISHKUMAR DALSHUKHBHAI
Adv. S N PATHAN
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-05-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 12-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 23-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 19-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 07-11-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 40/2020 DINESHBHAI ABHESINH SOLANKI v. MANIBHAI SAVABHAI BARAIYA & SHRIMIALI GIRISHKUMAR DALSHUKHBHAI The court granted interim relief (temporary injunction) in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner sought protection of agricultural land (three field parcels) from interference by respondents pending final judgment. The court found that the petitioner's ancestors held valid registered sale documents (1978) establishing ownership, while respondents acquired the same property through subsequent registrations in 2020. The court ordered all respondents to maintain status quo—preventing them from selling, encumbering, or interfering with the petitioner's possession of the disputed agricultural land until final case disposal. The court also noted concerns about potential multiple sales and determined the petitioner had a stronger claim based on original documentation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 40/2020 DINESHBHAI ABHESINH SOLANKI v. MANIBHAI SAVABHAI BARAIYA & SHRIMIALI GIRISHKUMAR DALSHUKHBHAI The court granted interim relief (temporary injunction) in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner sought protection of agricultural land (three field parcels) from interference by respondents pending final judgment. The court found that the petitioner's ancestors held valid registered sale documents (1978) establishing ownership, while respondents acquired the same property through subsequent registrations in 2020. The court ordered all respondents to maintain status quo—preventing them from selling, encumbering, or interfering with the petitioner's possession of the disputed agricultural land until final case disposal. The court also noted concerns about potential multiple sales and determined the petitioner had a stronger claim based on original documentation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts