SHYAMJI RAMLOCHAN MOURYA vs SANGITABEN D/O CHHOTALAL MEHTA AND W/O MEHTA NAIMESHKUMAR NAROTTAMDAS Advocate - H R PATHAN — 4/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9,. Status: ISSUES. Next hearing: 13th April 2026.

SPCS - SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJMH050010312024

ISSUES

Next Hearing

13th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

4/2024

Filing Date

22-11-2024

Registration No

4/2024

Registration Date

22-11-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, KHERALU

Judge

2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 9,

Petitioner(s)

SHYAMJI RAMLOCHAN MOURYA

Adv. D D SEJWANI

Respondent(s)

SANGITABEN D/O CHHOTALAL MEHTA AND W/O MEHTA NAIMESHKUMAR NAROTTAMDAS Advocate - H R PATHAN

NAIMESH KUMAR MEHTA

Adv. H R PATHAN

SUNILKUMAR NAROTTAMDAS MEHTA

Adv. H R PATHAN

JAIMIN S/O SUNILKUMAR MEHTA

Adv. H R PATHAN

Hearing History

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

06-03-2026

ISSUES

05-02-2026

ISSUES

13-01-2026

ISSUES

05-01-2026

ISSUES

20-11-2025

ISSUES

Interim Orders

20-11-2025
ORDER

Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's application for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiff failed to provide definite evidence that the defendant intended to dispose of or remove the property to obstruct decree execution; mere allegations were insufficient. Additionally, considering the negligible bank charge relative to the agreed property price of Rs. 1.61 crore, the court found the application lacked merit and dismissed it with costs to follow the main suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's application for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiff failed to provide definite evidence that the defendant intended to dispose of or remove the property to obstruct decree execution; mere allegations were insufficient. Additionally, considering the negligible bank charge relative to the agreed property price of Rs. 1.61 crore, the court found the application lacked merit and dismissed it with costs to follow the main suit. 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