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

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

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

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,38,39

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

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

01-10-2025
ORDER

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, MANDVI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case