PUNJIBEN SAVABHAI PARMAR vs IDAR NAGARPALIKA Advocate - B.R.RATHOD — 40/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 01st May 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJSK040024702019
Next Hearing
01st May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
40/2019
Filing Date
25-11-2019
Registration No
40/2019
Registration Date
25-11-2019
Court
TALUKA COURT, IDAR
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PUNJIBEN SAVABHAI PARMAR
Adv. M.B.JOSHI
BHARATBHAI SAVBHAI PARMAR
BHAVESHKUMAR SAVABHAI PARMAR
Respondent(s)
IDAR NAGARPALIKA Advocate - B.R.RATHOD
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 20-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 10-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 23-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 12-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary The appeal (Section 5 revision petition) filed by the plaintiff regarding an encroachment dispute over municipal land and an adjoining property has been allowed. The court set aside the previous order denying the plaintiff's relief and directed that the encroachments made by the defendants on the plaintiff's property—including unauthorized construction, water tanks, and cement structures—be removed within the timeframe specified in the municipal notice (Section 5 order). The court found the plaintiff's claims regarding the illegal encroachment on their building plot to be valid and ordered restoration of their property rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The appeal (Section 5 revision petition) filed by the plaintiff regarding an encroachment dispute over municipal land and an adjoining property has been allowed. The court set aside the previous order denying the plaintiff's relief and directed that the encroachments made by the defendants on the plaintiff's property—including unauthorized construction, water tanks, and cement structures—be removed within the timeframe specified in the municipal notice (Section 5 order). The court found the plaintiff's claims regarding the illegal encroachment on their building plot to be valid and ordered restoration of their property rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts