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
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
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
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts