HASMUKHLAL CHANDULAL DOSHI vs TRUSTEE OF SAIFI HOSPITAL AND NURSING HOME Advocate - H A MOJANIDAR — 190/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 02nd April 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJLV020024222024

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

02nd April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

191/2024

Filing Date

12-09-2024

Registration No

190/2024

Registration Date

12-09-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, LUNAWADA

Judge

4-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 9,

Petitioner(s)

HASMUKHLAL CHANDULAL DOSHI

Adv. J A PATHAK

IMTIYAZ ABDUL MAJID MALVANIYA

Adv. J A PATHAK

Respondent(s)

TRUSTEE OF SAIFI HOSPITAL AND NURSING HOME Advocate - H A MOJANIDAR

JOHARBHAI YUSUFBHAI DIVANJI

Adv. H A MOJANIDAR

ABDEALIBHAI ROSHANALI LIMDIYAVALA

Adv. H A MOJANIDAR

Hearing History

Judge: 4-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

05-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

26-02-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

22-01-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

04-12-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

11-11-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

20-03-2025
ORDER

SUMMARY: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction to restrain defendants from interrupting their possession of shop properties in Lunawada. The Additional Civil Judge found that since a parallel land grabbing complaint under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act had been registered against the plaintiffs, the civil court should not exercise interim relief jurisdiction that would defeat the special statute's provisions. The judge concluded the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and the balance of convenience favored the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction to restrain defendants from interrupting their possession of shop properties in Lunawada. The Additional Civil Judge found that since a parallel land grabbing complaint under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act had been registered against the plaintiffs, the civil court should not exercise interim relief jurisdiction that would defeat the special statute's provisions. The judge concluded the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and the balance of convenience favored the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, LUNAWADA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case