JADEJA KHETUBHA MURVAJI vs GODAVARIBEN NARANJI TAAKAR / DIPTIBEN PARESH CHOTHANI Advocate - H B RAYAMA — 93/2019
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,37,38. Status: DEFENDANT EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKT040015022019
Next Hearing
17th June 2026
Filing Number
93/2019
Filing Date
26-12-2019
Registration No
93/2019
Registration Date
26-12-2019
Court
TALUKA COURT, MANDVI
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
JADEJA KHETUBHA MURVAJI
Adv. A R JADEJA
JADEJA JORUBHA KHETUBHA MURVAJI
Adv. A R JADEJA
JADEJA HITENRSIH JORUBHA
Adv. A R JADEJA
Respondent(s)
GODAVARIBEN NARANJI TAAKAR / DIPTIBEN PARESH CHOTHANI Advocate - H B RAYAMA
PREMJI RAVJI KERAI
Adv. ABATED
HIRJI KESHRA KANBI
Adv. N S KHARVA
PIYUSH HARJI RABDIYA
Adv. N S KHARVA
RINEW VIND AENRGY P. LIMITET
Adv. K B OZA
KRUTI CONSTRKTION COMPNY
Adv. EX PARTY
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 15-04-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 08-04-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 11-03-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 18-02-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Regular Civil Suit No. 93/2019 | Mandvi Civil Court | Order Date: 08/09/2022 The plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction to restrain defendants from alienating ancestral property has been rejected. The court found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as they could not produce mortgage deeds, pedigree documents, or specific details about the alleged mortgage despite claiming redemption rights as legal heirs. Without proof of a prima facie case, the court declined to consider balance of convenience or irreparable injury factors. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Regular Civil Suit No. 93/2019 | Mandvi Civil Court | Order Date: 08/09/2022 The plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction to restrain defendants from alienating ancestral property has been rejected. The court found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as they could not produce mortgage deeds, pedigree documents, or specific details about the alleged mortgage despite claiming redemption rights as legal heirs. Without proof of a prima facie case, the court declined to consider balance of convenience or irreparable injury factors. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts