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
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
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
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts