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

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

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

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 36

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.

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

20-11-2025
ORDER

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, ANJAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case