SOLANKI KANKUBEN D/O ANDARSINH GAMIRSINH vs BHARVAD JIVABHAI SAHUDBHAI Advocate - B P PUROHIT — 31/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 009,. Status: ISSUES. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKH120006582017
Next Hearing
19th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
31/2017
Filing Date
25-05-2017
Registration No
31/2017
Registration Date
25-05-2017
Court
TALUKA COURT, DAKOR
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SOLANKI KANKUBEN D/O ANDARSINH GAMIRSINH
Adv. H R RATHOD
SOLANKI RAYSINHBHAI ANDARSINH
Respondent(s)
BHARVAD JIVABHAI SAHUDBHAI Advocate - B P PUROHIT
BHARVAD NARANBHAI HAMIRBHAI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | ISSUES | |
| 09-03-2026 | ISSUES | |
| 05-02-2026 | ISSUES | |
| 18-12-2025 | ISSUES | |
| 13-11-2025 | ISSUES |
Interim Orders
Summary In Civil Suit No. 31 of 2017, the plaintiff's interim injunction application (Exh-05) seeking to restrain defendants from taking possession of disputed agricultural property was rejected, while the defendant's counter-application for interim injunction (Exh-13) was allowed. The court found that the defendant had a stronger prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favor, noting that possession was handed over to the defendant in 2010 under an agreement to sell and the property was subsequently registered in the defendant's name. Both parties are directed to maintain status quo until final disposal of the suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In Civil Suit No. 31 of 2017, the plaintiff's interim injunction application (Exh-05) seeking to restrain defendants from taking possession of disputed agricultural property was rejected, while the defendant's counter-application for interim injunction (Exh-13) was allowed. The court found that the defendant had a stronger prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favor, noting that possession was handed over to the defendant in 2010 under an agreement to sell and the property was subsequently registered in the defendant's name. Both parties are directed to maintain status quo until final disposal of the suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts