SMITABEN NITINBHAI CHAUDHARI vs NITINBHAI PARBHUBHAI CHAUDHARI Advocate - Y P TIWARI — 41/2015
Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 07th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJTP060000412015
Next Hearing
07th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
41/2015
Filing Date
03-07-2015
Registration No
41/2015
Registration Date
03-07-2015
Court
TALUKA COURT, SONGADH
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Petitioner(s)
SMITABEN NITINBHAI CHAUDHARI
Adv. J C DHODIA
Respondent(s)
NITINBHAI PARBHUBHAI CHAUDHARI Advocate - Y P TIWARI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 12-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 16-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 20-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 19-11-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's temporary injunction application (R.C.S. No. 41/15, dated 26/07/2023). The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss—the three essential elements for granting a temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court found that the defendant's rights to the disputed petrol pump land property, created through legally valid and notarized consent letters and affidavits, were properly registered in revenue records, and the plaintiff had not come before the court with clean hands. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's temporary injunction application (R.C.S. No. 41/15, dated 26/07/2023). The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss—the three essential elements for granting a temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court found that the defendant's rights to the disputed petrol pump land property, created through legally valid and notarized consent letters and affidavits, were properly registered in revenue records, and the plaintiff had not come before the court with clean hands. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts