JUMA VIRA HARIJAN-MAHESHWARI vs SHAH MANIBEN JETHALAL CHAPSHI Advocate - P D JADEJA — 40/2017
Case under Contract Act, 1872 Section 037. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 07th May 2026.
SPCS - SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKT030019032017
Filing Number
40/2017
Filing Date
09-02-2012
Registration No
40/2017
Registration Date
09-02-2012
Court
TALUKA COURT, MUNDRA
Judge
5-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
JUMA VIRA HARIJAN-MAHESHWARI
Adv. K K GADHVI
Respondent(s)
SHAH MANIBEN JETHALAL CHAPSHI Advocate - P D JADEJA
SHAH HARKHCHAND JETHALAL CHAPASHI
Adv. P D JADEJA
SHAH TARABEN JETHALAL CHAPASHI @ W/O JADAVJI KHIMJI SHAH
Adv. P D JADEJA
SHAH CHANDANBEN JETHALAL CHAPASHI @W/O SHANTILAL RABHIYA
Adv. P D JADEJA
SHAH PARESH JETHALAL CHAPASHI
Adv. P D JADEJA
SHAH KASHTURBEN JEHTALAL CHAPASHI
Adv. P D JADEJA
MANUBHA KARSHANJI SODHA
Adv. J J JADEJA
Hearing History
Judge: 5-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 02-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 01-01-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 04-11-2025 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of a 2010 land sale agreement, finding that the plaintiff failed to pay the remaining Rs.6,73,000 consideration by the March 21, 2011 deadline and lacked continuous financial readiness to perform. Although the defendants timely fulfilled their obligation to register the land's succession entry, the plaintiff's unsubstantiated claim about removing a mortgage encumbrance was a pretext to evade payment; the sale agreement contained no such condition and the encumbrance existed at signing. The court upheld the defendants' lawful termination and the third party's bona fide purchase status. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of a 2010 land sale agreement, finding that the plaintiff failed to pay the remaining Rs.6,73,000 consideration by the March 21, 2011 deadline and lacked continuous financial readiness to perform. Although the defendants timely fulfilled their obligation to register the land's succession entry, the plaintiff's unsubstantiated claim about removing a mortgage encumbrance was a pretext to evade payment; the sale agreement contained no such condition and the encumbrance existed at signing. The court upheld the defendants' lawful termination and the third party's bona fide purchase status. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts