SAJUBHA PANCHUBHA JADEJA vs VADILAL DUNGARSHIH SHAH Advocate - V V MAHESHWARI — 38/2021
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,38. Status: DEFENDANT EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKT040011502021
Next Hearing
17th June 2026
Filing Number
38/2021
Filing Date
15-06-2021
Registration No
38/2021
Registration Date
15-06-2021
Court
TALUKA COURT, MANDVI
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SAJUBHA PANCHUBHA JADEJA
Adv. K S VASANI
Respondent(s)
VADILAL DUNGARSHIH SHAH Advocate - V V MAHESHWARI
RUKHMANIBEN D/O DUNGARSHI SHAH
Adv. V V MAHESHWARI
VIMLABEN D/O DUNGARSHIH SHAH W/O VASANTLAL DEDHIYA
Adv. V V MAHESHWARI
MINABEN D/O DUGARSHIH SHAH W/O DHIRAJLAL SHAH
Adv. V V MAHESHWARI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 11-03-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 18-02-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 01-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 27-11-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary Petition Dismissed. The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction restraining defendants from selling the suit property. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as the sale deed was a mortgage transfer (not absolute sale), defendants were legally entered in revenue records, and the plaintiff sought injunction against hypothetical future acts rather than actual harm. Costs shall be borne by the plaintiff in the main suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary Petition Dismissed. The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction restraining defendants from selling the suit property. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as the sale deed was a mortgage transfer (not absolute sale), defendants were legally entered in revenue records, and the plaintiff sought injunction against hypothetical future acts rather than actual harm. Costs shall be borne by the plaintiff in the main suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts