LALJI KHIMJI SORAHIYA vs COLLACTOR SHRO Advocate - AGP — 267/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 36. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKT100029392024
Next Hearing
10th June 2026
Filing Number
267/2024
Filing Date
14-10-2024
Registration No
267/2024
Registration Date
14-10-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, ANJAR
Judge
14-2nd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
LALJI KHIMJI SORAHIYA
Adv. S H PALAN
Respondent(s)
COLLACTOR SHRO Advocate - AGP
MAMLTADAR SHRI
Adv. AGP
D I L R SHRI
Adv. AGP
TALARI SHIR
Adv. AGP
Hearing History
Judge: 14-2nd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-05-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 01-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 11-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 30-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 17-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary The petition filed under CPC Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 for a temporary injunction (mandatory order) regarding disputed agricultural land is dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish all three conditions necessary for granting an interim order: (1) a prima facie case, (2) irreparable injury, and (3) balance of convenience in the plaintiff's favor. The court held that the defendant's earlier order regarding the land was legally sound and that the plaintiff's allegations lacked sufficient evidentiary support to warrant judicial intervention pending final adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The petition filed under CPC Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 for a temporary injunction (mandatory order) regarding disputed agricultural land is dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish all three conditions necessary for granting an interim order: (1) a prima facie case, (2) irreparable injury, and (3) balance of convenience in the plaintiff's favor. The court held that the defendant's earlier order regarding the land was legally sound and that the plaintiff's allegations lacked sufficient evidentiary support to warrant judicial intervention pending final adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts