Kanchanben Parsottambhai Painter (Umrav) vs Kim Education Society Vidhya Sankul, A Registard Trust — 20/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 31,38,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 20th April 2026.
SPCS - SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJSR030021422022
Next Hearing
20th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
20/2022
Filing Date
30-08-2022
Registration No
20/2022
Registration Date
30-08-2022
Court
TALUKA COURT, OLPAD
Judge
1-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kanchanben Parsottambhai Painter (Umrav)
Adv. M M SHAH
Vijayaben Parsottambhai Painter
Respondent(s)
Kim Education Society Vidhya Sankul, A Registard Trust
Shri Durlabhbhai Nathubhai Patel
Uttambhai Chhaganbhai Parmar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 02-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 24-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 04-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 04-11-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
The plaintiff's application for a mandatory injunction (civil contempt petition) regarding land in Surat has been dismissed (rejected). The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish all three essential conditions required for granting a mandatory injunction: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Additionally, the court noted that the defendants allegedly violated the terms of a prior sale deed by not fulfilling construction conditions on the property as stipulated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The plaintiff's application for a mandatory injunction (civil contempt petition) regarding land in Surat has been dismissed (rejected). The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish all three essential conditions required for granting a mandatory injunction: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Additionally, the court noted that the defendants allegedly violated the terms of a prior sale deed by not fulfilling construction conditions on the property as stipulated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts