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.

Issues Next hearing 13-Apr-2026 this date has passed

SPCS - SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJMH050010312024

Filing Number

4/2024

Filing Date

22-Nov-2024

Registration No

4/2024

Registration Date

22-Nov-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, KHERALU

Judge

2-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Last updated 21-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 9

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHYAMJI RAMLOCHAN MOURYA

    Adv. D D SEJWANI

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.NAIMESH KUMAR MEHTA

    Adv. H R PATHAN

  3. 3.SUNILKUMAR NAROTTAMDAS MEHTA

    Adv. H R PATHAN

  4. 4.JAIMIN S/O SUNILKUMAR MEHTA

    Adv. H R PATHAN

Case History

  1. 13-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Issues

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  3. 05-Feb-2026

    Issues

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 13-Jan-2026

    Issues

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 05-Jan-2026

    Issues

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 20-Nov-2025

    OrderView PDF

    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.

  7. 20-Nov-2025

    Issues

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  8. 19-Nov-2025

    Order On Injuction Application

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  9. 14-Oct-2025

    Order On Injuction Application

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  10. 20-Sep-2025

    Order On Injuction Application

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  11. 01-Sep-2025

    Order On Injuction Application

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  12. 06-Aug-2025

    Order On Injuction Application

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  13. 29-Jul-2025

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  14. 16-Jul-2025

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  15. 26-Jun-2025

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  16. 27-May-2025

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  17. 06-May-2025

    Hearing On Injunction Application

  18. 29-Apr-2025

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  19. 09-Apr-2025

    For Counter Affidavit

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  20. 25-Mar-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  21. 28-Feb-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  22. 31-Jan-2025

    Summons - Notice

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  23. 06-Jan-2025

    Summons - Notice

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  24. 19-Dec-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 22-Nov-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 4/2024

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case