MANILAL SUNDARJI NAGDA vs LAKHAMAN MERAGBHAI KAMBARIYA Advocate - L J FUFAL — 2/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 39. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKT040000372022
Next Hearing
24th June 2026
Filing Number
2/2022
Filing Date
18-01-2022
Registration No
2/2022
Registration Date
18-01-2022
Court
TALUKA COURT, MANDVI
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MANILAL SUNDARJI NAGDA
Adv. K P KAGTADA
Respondent(s)
LAKHAMAN MERAGBHAI KAMBARIYA Advocate - L J FUFAL
RAGUBHAI MOHANBHAI BHUVA
Adv. L J FUFAL
HIMANSHU KANUBHAI PATEL
Adv. L J FUFAL
RAMSANGJI MURUJI URFE MULUJI SODHA
Adv. EX PARTY
BHAGUBHA DIPSANGJI SODHA
Adv. EX PARTY
KESUBHA DIPSANGJI SODHA
Adv. EX PARTY
KULDIP DIPSANJI SODHA
Adv. EX PARTY
RAMJIBHAI D. KATUVA
Adv. K S VASANI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 18-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 11-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 28-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 24-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary The Additional Civil Court, Mandvi (Kachchh) dismissed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction on January 11, 2024. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as the agreement relied upon was signed only by Defendant No. 4, who could not unilaterally bind all co-owners (Defendants 4-7). The court also determined that the balance of convenience favored the defendants, as they had purchased the property through a registered sale deed, and no irreparable loss would result from denying the injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Additional Civil Court, Mandvi (Kachchh) dismissed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction on January 11, 2024. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as the agreement relied upon was signed only by Defendant No. 4, who could not unilaterally bind all co-owners (Defendants 4-7). The court also determined that the balance of convenience favored the defendants, as they had purchased the property through a registered sale deed, and no irreparable loss would result from denying the injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts