BHIBHAJI VAGHAJI JADEJA(Legal Heir) vs SHAMBUDAN SANKARDAN GADHAVI LEGAL HEIR OF LATE GADHAVI LAXMIBEN SHANKARDAN Advocate - V R GADHVI — 2/2023
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,36,38,10. Status: DEFENDANT EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKT070002702023
Next Hearing
24th June 2026
Filing Number
2/2023
Filing Date
18-01-2023
Registration No
2/2023
Registration Date
18-01-2023
Court
TALUKA COURT, NAKHATRANA
Judge
4-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BHIBHAJI VAGHAJI JADEJA(Legal Heir)
Adv. D M JADEJA
Respondent(s)
SHAMBUDAN SANKARDAN GADHAVI LEGAL HEIR OF LATE GADHAVI LAXMIBEN SHANKARDAN Advocate - V R GADHVI
PUSHPABEN W/O SHABHUDAN GADHVI LEGAL HEIR OF LATE GADHAVI LAXMIBEN SHANKARDAN
Adv. V R GADHVI
Hearing History
Judge: 4-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-05-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 11-03-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 12-01-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 12-11-2025 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 10-09-2025 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary In Regular Civil Suit No. 2 of 2023, the court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction on 17/01/2024. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as he could not adequately prove the agreement to sell, possession of the property, or his readiness to perform his obligations. The court determined that the balance of convenience was not in the plaintiff's favor and no irreparable injury would result from denying the injunction. The parties were directed to cooperate in expeditious trial of the main suit with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In Regular Civil Suit No. 2 of 2023, the court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction on 17/01/2024. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as he could not adequately prove the agreement to sell, possession of the property, or his readiness to perform his obligations. The court determined that the balance of convenience was not in the plaintiff's favor and no irreparable injury would result from denying the injunction. The parties were directed to cooperate in expeditious trial of the main suit with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts