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
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
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
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts