HARISHKUMAR MOHANLAL SHAH vs ASHWINKUMAR JIVANLAL SHAH — 28/2015
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 009. Status: FINAL ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 04th May 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKH090000202015
Next Hearing
04th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
28/2015
Filing Date
05-05-2015
Registration No
28/2015
Registration Date
05-05-2015
Court
TALUKA COURT, MAHUDHA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
HARISHKUMAR MOHANLAL SHAH
Adv. D B BHATT
Respondent(s)
ASHWINKUMAR JIVANLAL SHAH
BHARTIBEN NARENDRABHAI SHAH
ALKESHBHAI JIVANLAL SHAH
SANGITABEN AJITKUMAR SHAH
MUMTAJBANU JAFARMIYA KURESHI
Adv. R B BHATT
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 06-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 30-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 23-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 13-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary The Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Mahudha rejected the Defendant No. 1's application seeking dismissal of the plaint on grounds of insufficient court fee and limitation. The court found that the limitation period under Article 59 of the Limitation Act involves mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence, since the plaintiff was unaware of the 2009 sale deed and limitation runs from the date of knowledge. Additionally, the court held that only half ad valorem fee applies to cancellation suits, so the plaintiff's court fee payment was adequate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary The Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Mahudha rejected the Defendant No. 1's application seeking dismissal of the plaint on grounds of insufficient court fee and limitation. The court found that the limitation period under Article 59 of the Limitation Act involves mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence, since the plaintiff was unaware of the 2009 sale deed and limitation runs from the date of knowledge. Additionally, the court held that only half ad valorem fee applies to cancellation suits, so the plaintiff's court fee payment was adequate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts