SHERASIYA AMIBHAI MAMADBHAI vs KADIWAR ABDULBHAI JALALBHAI Advocate - F S KHORAJIA — 15/2024

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 35,36. Status: Defendant Evidence. Next hearing: 07th April 2026.

Defendant Evidence Next hearing 07-Apr-2026 this date has passed

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJMR040005942024

Filing Number

15/2024

Filing Date

16-Feb-2024

Registration No

15/2024

Registration Date

16-Feb-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, WANKANER

Judge

3-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

Last updated 09-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 35,36

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHERASIYA AMIBHAI MAMADBHAI

    Adv. P S SHAH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KADIWAR ABDULBHAI JALALBHAI Advocate - F S KHORAJIA

Case History

  1. 07-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 05-Mar-2026

    Defendant Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  3. 17-Feb-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  4. 16-Jan-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  5. 11-Dec-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  6. 13-Nov-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  7. 04-Oct-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  8. 02-Sep-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  9. 07-Aug-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  10. 03-Jul-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  11. 13-Jun-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  12. 28-Apr-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  13. 01-Apr-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  14. 10-Mar-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  15. 14-Feb-2025

    OrderView PDF

  16. 14-Feb-2025

    OrderView PDF

    Summary R.C.S. No. 15/2024 - Gujarati Court Order The plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction (civil revision/appeal) has been dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case regarding the property dispute with the defendant over land access rights in Jetparda village. Without proving a strong case for trial, the court held that balance of convenience and irreparable injury arguments cannot support an injunction grant, as established legal precedent requires all three conditions for injunctive relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  17. 14-Feb-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  18. 20-Jan-2025

    Order On Inerim Appli.

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  19. 04-Jan-2025

    Hearing On Interim Appli.

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  20. 21-Dec-2024

    Hearing On Interim Appli.

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  21. 25-Nov-2024

    Hearing On Interim Appli.

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  22. 22-Oct-2024

    Hearing On Interim Appli.

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  23. 21-Sep-2024

    Summons Of Suit

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  24. 20-Jul-2024

    Summons Of Suit

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  25. 31-May-2024

    Summons Of Suit

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  26. 20-Apr-2024

    Summons Of Suit

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM

  27. 16-Feb-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 16-Feb-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 15/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary R.C.S. No. 15/2024 - Gujarati Court Order The plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction (civil revision/appeal) has been dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case regarding the property dispute with the defendant over land access rights in Jetparda village. Without proving a strong case for trial, the court held that balance of convenience and irreparable injury arguments cannot support an injunction grant, as established legal precedent requires all three conditions for injunctive relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case