RAKESHKUMAR BHIKHABHAI PATEL vs SUSHILABEN PRALADBHAI VANKAR Advocate - A H PARMAR — 88/2015
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,38,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
SPCS - SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJMH060027612015
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
88/2015
Filing Date
24-03-2014
Registration No
88/2015
Registration Date
24-03-2014
Court
TALUKA COURT, VISNAGAR
Judge
3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAKESHKUMAR BHIKHABHAI PATEL
Adv. B A NAYAK
Respondent(s)
SUSHILABEN PRALADBHAI VANKAR Advocate - A H PARMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 23-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 16-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 07-11-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 25-09-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary The petition was dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff failed to pursue the case actively, did not file necessary arguments or documents despite being given multiple opportunities, and the sale deed conditions were already violated by the defendant. Additionally, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought as the defendant had already completed the property transfer. The court rejected all six issues raised by the plaintiff and upheld the defendant's position. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary The petition was dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff failed to pursue the case actively, did not file necessary arguments or documents despite being given multiple opportunities, and the sale deed conditions were already violated by the defendant. Additionally, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought as the defendant had already completed the property transfer. The court rejected all six issues raised by the plaintiff and upheld the defendant's position. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts