UMESHBHAI BHUPATRAY DESAI vs KIRITBHAI NATHUBHAI VAGHANI Advocate - B.A.BHANDARI — 11/2023

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,38,. Status: HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.

SPCS - SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJNV050034562023

HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION

Next Hearing

17th June 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

11/2023

Filing Date

18-08-2023

Registration No

11/2023

Registration Date

18-08-2023

Court

TALUKA COURT, CHIKHLI

Judge

2-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

Acts & Sections

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 Section 34,38,

Petitioner(s)

UMESHBHAI BHUPATRAY DESAI

Adv. T M VASHI

BUPATRAY RANCHANDRA DESAI

Respondent(s)

KIRITBHAI NATHUBHAI VAGHANI Advocate - B.A.BHANDARI

BHARAT BHOJABHAI SOHALA

JIGNESH KEVAT @ J D BHARVAD

KALPESH PRAVINBHAI VAGHASIYA

Adv. V.S.PATIL

NILESHBHAI KHIMAJIBHAI VAGHASIYA

Adv. V.S.PATIL

MAHENDRA I BHAGAT

Hearing History

Judge: 2-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

07-04-2026

HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION

09-03-2026

HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION

18-02-2026

HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION

06-01-2026

HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION

18-11-2025

HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION

Interim Orders

09-03-2026
ORDER

Case Summary The court rejected Defendant No. 1's application seeking dismissal of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The court found that the plaintiff adequately disclosed a cause of action by alleging fraud and forgery in the execution of two registered sale deeds using fabricated powers of attorney, and that the suit was filed within the limitation period after the plaintiff discovered the fraudulent deeds in January 2021. The court held that limitation and forgery issues are triable matters requiring evidence and cannot be decided at the threshold stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The court rejected Defendant No. 1's application seeking dismissal of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The court found that the plaintiff adequately disclosed a cause of action by alleging fraud and forgery in the execution of two registered sale deeds using fabricated powers of attorney, and that the suit was filed within the limitation period after the plaintiff discovered the fraudulent deeds in January 2021. The court held that limitation and forgery issues are triable matters requiring evidence and cannot be decided at the threshold stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, CHIKHLI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case