DAHIBEN D/O LAKHMAN VARCHAND W/O LAKSHMANBHAI DHILA vs FULIBEN D/O LAKHMAN VARCHAND W/O GOPALBHAI DHILA Advocate - A J THACKER — 184/2023
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,38. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 01st April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKT020035452023
Filing Number
184/2023
Filing Date
01-May-2023
Registration No
184/2023
Registration Date
01-May-2023
Court
CIVIL COURT BHUJ
Judge
2-Chief Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
01-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 21-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.DAHIBEN D/O LAKHMAN VARCHAND W/O LAKSHMANBHAI DHILA
Adv. B M DODIYA
Respondent(s)
-
1.FULIBEN D/O LAKHMAN VARCHAND W/O GOPALBHAI DHILA Advocate - A J THACKER
-
2.HIMABEN D/O LAKHMAN VARCHAND W/O VELABHAI DHILA
-
3.DINESH LAKHMAN VARCHAND
Adv. D B SONI
-
4.MAVJI DEVKARAN MATA
-
5.MOMAY ARJAN VARCHAND
-
6.KRUNAL DANABHAI GORANI
Adv. A J THACKER
-
7.ISHWARBHAI MADHAVJI GORANI
Adv. A J THACKER
-
8.MATA BHAGU ARJAN HIRA DEVANI
-
9.RAMJI KARSHAN VELANI
Adv. A J THACKER
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
01-Apr-2026
OrderView PDF
Court Decision Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's plaint as barred by the law of limitation. The court found that sale deeds registered between 2008-2011 were challenged in 2023—over 12 years later—and the plaintiff's vague fraud allegations lacked specific supporting details required by law. Since registered documents establish "deemed knowledge" from their registration date, the suit exceeded the 3-year limitation period for forgery declarations and was "hopelessly time barred." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
01-Apr-2026
Disposed
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Mar-2026
Hearing
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
19-Feb-2026
Hearing
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
06-Jan-2026
Hearing
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
06-Dec-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
01-Nov-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
20-Sep-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
20-Aug-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
10-Jul-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
23-Jun-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
09-May-2025
Written Statement/Reply
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.
-
07-Apr-2025
Written Statement/Reply
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
06-Mar-2025
Written Statement/Reply
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
29-Jan-2025
Written Statement/Reply
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
21-Dec-2024
Written Statement/Reply
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
25-Nov-2024
Written Statement/Reply
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
22-Oct-2024
Written Statement/Reply
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
20-Sep-2024
Written Statement/Reply
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
16-Aug-2024
Written Statement/Reply
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
10-Jul-2024
Written Statement/Reply
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
14-Jun-2024
Written Statement/Reply
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
26-Apr-2024
Written Statement/Reply
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.
-
05-Apr-2024
Written Statement/Reply
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.
-
18-Mar-2024
Written Statement/Reply
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.
-
20-Feb-2024
Summons - Notice
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.
-
23-Jan-2024
Summons - Notice
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.
-
11-Dec-2023
Summons - Notice
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.
-
06-Nov-2023
Summons - Notice
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.
-
30-Sep-2023
Hearing
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.
-
28-Aug-2023
Hearing
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.
-
28-Jul-2023
Hearing
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.
-
04-Jul-2023
Hearing
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.
-
12-Jun-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
01-May-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 184/2023
Court Decision Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's plaint as barred by the law of limitation. The court found that sale deeds registered between 2008-2011 were challenged in 2023—over 12 years later—and the plaintiff's vague fraud allegations lacked specific supporting details required by law. Since registered documents establish "deemed knowledge" from their registration date, the suit exceeded the 3-year limitation period for forgery declarations and was "hopelessly time barred." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts