NILESH VISHANJI DEDHIYA vs SHRI KUCH BIDADA VISHA OSVAL JAIN DERASAR SANG Advocate - V V MAHESHWARI — 78/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,38,39. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKT040012802025
Next Hearing
25th June 2026
Filing Number
78/2025
Filing Date
19-08-2025
Registration No
78/2025
Registration Date
19-08-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, MANDVI
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
NILESH VISHANJI DEDHIYA
Adv. P S SANGAR
Respondent(s)
SHRI KUCH BIDADA VISHA OSVAL JAIN DERASAR SANG Advocate - V V MAHESHWARI
KESHAVJI KHIMAJI MARU PRESIDENT OF SHRI KUTCH BIDADA VISHA OSVAL JAIN DERASARVASI SANG
Adv. V V MAHESHWARI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 11-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 18-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 30-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 17-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's interim relief application (petition) with no stay order against the defendants' construction work. The judge found the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case or sufficient equity in their favor, as the property ownership, boundaries, and access rights were disputed and evidenced by conflicting registration documents. The defendants' right to construct on their registered property (Plot 1414) could not be restrained based on the plaintiff's deficient evidence and contradictory claims regarding shared property boundaries. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's interim relief application (petition) with no stay order against the defendants' construction work. The judge found the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case or sufficient equity in their favor, as the property ownership, boundaries, and access rights were disputed and evidenced by conflicting registration documents. The defendants' right to construct on their registered property (Plot 1414) could not be restrained based on the plaintiff's deficient evidence and contradictory claims regarding shared property boundaries. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts