RAGUVIR GODADBHAI CHAUDHRY vs Government of India — 20/2016

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 100. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 01st April 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJMH050005642016

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

01st April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

20/2016

Filing Date

03-09-2016

Registration No

20/2016

Registration Date

03-09-2016

Court

TALUKA COURT, KHERALU

Judge

2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 100

Petitioner(s)

RAGUVIR GODADBHAI CHAUDHRY

Adv. M.D.DESAI

Respondent(s)

Government of India

rajiben babubhai

kanjibhai lavjibhai chaudhary

Adv. B.K.THAKOR

bhagavanbhai bhikhabhai chaudhary

Hearing History

Judge: 2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

06-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

05-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

03-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

02-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

27-02-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

01-02-2025
ORDER

Court Order Summary Case: R.C.S. No. 20/2016 (Gujarat High Court) Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal seeking a mandatory injunction order. The court held that while mandatory injunctions can be granted in exceptional cases, the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficiently strong prima facie case and did not demonstrate that withholding relief would cause irreparable harm meeting the high threshold required. The court found that the defendant's construction work (barrier) was undertaken before the suit filing, and the plaintiff's delay in challenging it weakened their claim for mandatory relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Order Summary Case: R.C.S. No. 20/2016 (Gujarat High Court) Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal seeking a mandatory injunction order. The court held that while mandatory injunctions can be granted in exceptional cases, the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficiently strong prima facie case and did not demonstrate that withholding relief would cause irreparable harm meeting the high threshold required. The court found that the defendant's construction work (barrier) was undertaken before the suit filing, and the plaintiff's delay in challenging it weakened their claim for mandatory relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, KHERALU All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case