LALJIBHAI PAMABHAI CHAMAR vs RAJPUT HANUBHAI GHELABHAI Advocate - B.D.GANESHIYA, B.D.GANESHIYA — 5/2015

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 031,034,038. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 12th March 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJMR060000052015

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

12th March 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

5/2015

Filing Date

28-01-2015

Registration No

5/2015

Registration Date

28-01-2015

Court

TALUKA COURT, HALVAD

Judge

33-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. CJM

Acts & Sections

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 Section 031,034,038

Petitioner(s)

LALJIBHAI PAMABHAI CHAMAR

Adv. V.C.JANI

Respondent(s)

RAJPUT HANUBHAI GHELABHAI Advocate - B.D.GANESHIYA, B.D.GANESHIYA

RAJPUT RUPABHAI BECHARBHAI(Legal Heir)

Adv. B.D.GANESHIYA

RAJPUT BANESHANGBHAI MANSANGBHAI

Adv. B.D.GANESHIYA

Hearing History

Judge: 33-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. CJM

05-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

26-02-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

19-02-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

12-02-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

05-02-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

20-11-2025
ORDER
20-11-2025
ORDER
11-12-2025
ORDER

Case Summary: RCS. 5/2015 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding land ownership and dismissed key contentions in the cross-examination. The court found the plaintiff's claims regarding Plot No. 419 and the defendants' land holdings to be unsubstantiated, noting missing documentary evidence (revenue records, survey maps, ownership deeds). The case was adjourned with directions for further proceedings, and the plaintiff was directed to substantiate claims with proper land documentation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RCS. 5/2015 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding land ownership and dismissed key contentions in the cross-examination. The court found the plaintiff's claims regarding Plot No. 419 and the defendants' land holdings to be unsubstantiated, noting missing documentary evidence (revenue records, survey maps, ownership deeds). The case was adjourned with directions for further proceedings, and the plaintiff was directed to substantiate claims with proper land documentation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, HALVAD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case