NURMOHAMMAD HAJIRASULBHAI SHAIKH vs PRAKASHKUMAR ANANDLAL PARIKH Advocate - S K JOSHI — 10/2006
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 009. Status: FINAL ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 06th May 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJNR020014572006
Next Hearing
06th May 2026
Filing Number
10/2006
Filing Date
13-02-2006
Registration No
10/2006
Registration Date
13-02-2006
Court
CIVIL COURT RAJPIPLA
Judge
7-CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
NURMOHAMMAD HAJIRASULBHAI SHAIKH
Adv. M G KURISHE
Respondent(s)
PRAKASHKUMAR ANANDLAL PARIKH Advocate - S K JOSHI
BANKIMCHANDRA CHAMPAKLAL PARIKH
Adv. S K JOSHI
DINESHBHAI SHIVLAL PATEL
Adv. S K JOSHI
SAHEBKHA SERMAHMANDKHA THAKOR
Adv. M H SAIYED
Hearing History
Judge: 7-CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 04-05-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 02-05-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 01-05-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 30-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Interim Orders
Summary In Registered Civil Suit No. 10/2006, the court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against defendants 1 and 2 under C.P.C. Order 7 Rule 11, finding no valid cause of action. The court rejected the plaintiff's claims, noting that the plaintiff suppressed material facts, failed to establish ownership of the disputed property, and filed the suit outside the limitation period (in 2006 for a 2004 document). The defendant's counter-appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff is liable for costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In Registered Civil Suit No. 10/2006, the court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against defendants 1 and 2 under C.P.C. Order 7 Rule 11, finding no valid cause of action. The court rejected the plaintiff's claims, noting that the plaintiff suppressed material facts, failed to establish ownership of the disputed property, and filed the suit outside the limitation period (in 2006 for a 2004 document). The defendant's counter-appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff is liable for costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts