GOPAL SHIVJI RUPALIYA vs PREMJI MEGHJI HIRANI Advocate - M K GOSWAMI — 420/2023
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,38. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 10th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKT020098732023
Filing Number
420/2023
Filing Date
25-Nov-2023
Registration No
420/2023
Registration Date
25-Nov-2023
Court
CIVIL COURT BHUJ
Judge
2-Chief Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
10-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 21-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GOPAL SHIVJI RUPALIYA
Adv. A J THACKER
Respondent(s)
-
1.PREMJI MEGHJI HIRANI Advocate - M K GOSWAMI
-
2.DEVJI PREMJI HIRANI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Apr-2026
OrderView PDF
The court rejected the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to sell property from 1997, filed in 2023, finding it barred by the three-year limitation period under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court held that the plaintiff failed to disclose essential dates of the agreement and refusal to perform, thus failing to establish a valid cause of action within the prescribed limitation period, and also noted the plaintiff's contradictory pleas of specific performance and adverse possession cannot be maintained together. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Apr-2026
Disposed
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
03-Apr-2026
Hearing
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Mar-2026
Hearing
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
19-Feb-2026
Hearing
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
29-Jan-2026
Hearing
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
18-Dec-2025
Hearing
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
30-Oct-2025
Hearing
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Sep-2025
Hearing
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
06-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.
-
23-Apr-2025
Written Statement/Reply
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
21-Mar-2025
Written Statement/Reply
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
13-Feb-2025
Written Statement/Reply
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
08-Jan-2025
Written Statement/Reply
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
10-Dec-2024
Written Statement/Reply
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
08-Nov-2024
Written Statement/Reply
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
27-Sep-2024
Written Statement/Reply
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
23-Aug-2024
Written Statement/Reply
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
23-Jul-2024
Written Statement/Reply
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
12-Jun-2024
Written Statement/Reply
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
03-May-2024
Written Statement/Reply
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.
-
03-Apr-2024
Written Statement/Reply
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.
-
04-Mar-2024
Written Statement/Reply
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.
-
05-Feb-2024
Written Statement/Reply
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.
-
26-Dec-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
25-Nov-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 420/2023
The court rejected the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to sell property from 1997, filed in 2023, finding it barred by the three-year limitation period under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court held that the plaintiff failed to disclose essential dates of the agreement and refusal to perform, thus failing to establish a valid cause of action within the prescribed limitation period, and also noted the plaintiff's contradictory pleas of specific performance and adverse possession cannot be maintained together. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts