PURANIYA AJAY VALLABHBHAI vs KISHOR SHANTILAL @ SHANTUBHAI PATEL — 61/2023

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 37,38,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 02nd May 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJSR030027452023

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

02nd May 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

60/2023

Filing Date

05-07-2023

Registration No

61/2023

Registration Date

05-07-2023

Court

TALUKA COURT, OLPAD

Judge

2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Acts & Sections

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 Section 37,38,
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 2,

Petitioner(s)

PURANIYA AJAY VALLABHBHAI

Adv. P M CHAUDHARI

Respondent(s)

KISHOR SHANTILAL @ SHANTUBHAI PATEL

Hearing History

Judge: 2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

09-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

28-01-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

20-12-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

04-11-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

30-09-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

22-10-2024
ORDER

Case Summary The court granted interim relief (ad-interim injunction) in this property dispute case. The plaintiff's Application No. 5 seeking temporary injunction was allowed, restraining the defendants from selling, mortgaging, or transferring land (measuring 384.40 sq.m. in Olpad, Surat with Block No. 110) or creating any encumbrances on the mortgaged property until final judgment. The court found the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, and irreparable injury would result if the order were refused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The court granted interim relief (ad-interim injunction) in this property dispute case. The plaintiff's Application No. 5 seeking temporary injunction was allowed, restraining the defendants from selling, mortgaging, or transferring land (measuring 384.40 sq.m. in Olpad, Surat with Block No. 110) or creating any encumbrances on the mortgaged property until final judgment. The court found the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, and irreparable injury would result if the order were refused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, OLPAD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case