KIRITBHAI SHANKARBHAI PARMAR vs RAMESHBHAI PITARBHAI RATHOD Advocate - D B AUTHOR — 20/2018

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 009,. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 06th March 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJKH160002432018

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

20/2018

Filing Date

11-05-2018

Registration No

20/2018

Registration Date

11-05-2018

Court

TALUKA COURT, VASO

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

06th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 009,
IA/1/2018 Classification : INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION Section KIRITBHAI SHANKARBHAI PARMARRAMESHBHAI PITARBHAI RATHOD

Petitioner(s)

KIRITBHAI SHANKARBHAI PARMAR

Adv. S.T.PATELIYA

Respondent(s)

RAMESHBHAI PITARBHAI RATHOD Advocate - D B AUTHOR

PRAVINBHAI SULEMANBHAI RATHOD

Adv. D B AUTHOR

SEVAKBHAI SULEMANBHAI RATHOD

Adv. D B AUTHOR

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

06-03-2026

Disposed

06-02-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

30-01-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

13-01-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

23-12-2025

FINAL ARGUMENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

06-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The court partially allowed the plaintiff's suit regarding a property (plot no. 213) in village Zharol, Kheda district. The court ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the disputed property that the defendants illegally occupied, but rejected other claims including requests for permanent injunction and case costs. The defendants were ordered to vacate and return the property to the plaintiff, with the judgment dismissing frivolous allegations of criminal threats made by the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

05-12-2020
ORDER
casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court partially allowed the plaintiff's suit regarding a property (plot no. 213) in village Zharol, Kheda district. The court ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the disputed property that the defendants illegally occupied, but rejected other claims including requests for permanent injunction and case costs. The defendants were ordered to vacate and return the property to the plaintiff, with the judgment dismissing frivolous allegations of criminal threats made by the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, VASO All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case