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
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
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
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | ISSUES | |
| 05-02-2026 | ISSUES | |
| 13-01-2026 | ISSUES | |
| 05-01-2026 | ISSUES | |
| 20-11-2025 | ISSUES |
Interim Orders
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.
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
Explore other courts