BHARATBHAI RAMESHBHAI SOLANKI vs HIRUBEN SOMABHAI PARDHI — 79/2024

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 39. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 20th May 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJRJ020064382024

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

20th May 2026

Filing Number

79/2024

Filing Date

12-03-2024

Registration No

79/2024

Registration Date

12-03-2024

Court

CIVIL COURT RAJKOT

Judge

4-9TH ADDL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC

Acts & Sections

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 Section 39

Petitioner(s)

BHARATBHAI RAMESHBHAI SOLANKI

Adv. K N MORI

RAMESHBHAI MADHABHAI SOLANKI

Respondent(s)

HIRUBEN SOMABHAI PARDHI

MUKESHBHAI SOMABHAI PARDHI

Hearing History

Judge: 4-9TH ADDL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC

11-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

20-02-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

11-12-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

17-11-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

09-10-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

18-06-2024
ORDER
18-06-2024
ORDER

Case Summary: The court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff in a property sale dispute. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 5,50,000/- as advance to the defendants for a house purchase under a registered agreement dated March 4, 2023, but the defendants breached the agreement by refusing to execute the sale deed and attempting to sell the property elsewhere. The court found the plaintiff had a prima facie case, balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, and the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss if not protected. The defendants are restrained from transferring the property to any third party until final disposal of the suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff in a property sale dispute. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 5,50,000/- as advance to the defendants for a house purchase under a registered agreement dated March 4, 2023, but the defendants breached the agreement by refusing to execute the sale deed and attempting to sell the property elsewhere. The court found the plaintiff had a prima facie case, balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, and the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss if not protected. The defendants are restrained from transferring the property to any third party until final disposal of the suit. 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

CIVIL COURT RAJKOT All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case