Bhikhabhai Ranchhodbhai Padhiyar vs Kiranbhai Bhailalbhai Parmar Advocate - A.K.VOHRA — 113/2012
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 001. Status: FINAL ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 06th May 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJVD040001182012
Next Hearing
06th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
113/2012
Filing Date
05-11-2012
Registration No
113/2012
Registration Date
05-11-2012
Court
TALUKA COURT, PADRA
Judge
2-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bhikhabhai Ranchhodbhai Padhiyar
Adv. A.V.PATEL
Respondent(s)
Kiranbhai Bhailalbhai Parmar Advocate - A.K.VOHRA
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 12-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 08-01-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 16-12-2025 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 24-11-2025 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Interim Orders
Summary The Taluka Court at Padra dismissed the plaintiff's suit (RCS/113/2012) regarding disputed property ownership in village Amla. The court ruled against the plaintiff on all three issues: (1) that this was not a valid first instance case, (2) that the balance of convenience favored the defendant, and (3) that granting relief would cause disproportionate injury to the defendant. The plaintiff's claim to the property was found to be unsupported, as the defendant held registered ownership with right of way access, while the plaintiff lacked enforceable rights to the contested land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Taluka Court at Padra dismissed the plaintiff's suit (RCS/113/2012) regarding disputed property ownership in village Amla. The court ruled against the plaintiff on all three issues: (1) that this was not a valid first instance case, (2) that the balance of convenience favored the defendant, and (3) that granting relief would cause disproportionate injury to the defendant. The plaintiff's claim to the property was found to be unsupported, as the defendant held registered ownership with right of way access, while the plaintiff lacked enforceable rights to the contested land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts