M/s. Avid Organics Pvt Ltd., Authorized Director Mr. Dheeraj Jain vs Chetanbhai Shankarsinh Waghela Advocate - B K PANDYA — 6/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 30. Status: Hearing On Injunction Application. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.
SPCS - SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJVD050008032024
Filing Number
6/2024
Filing Date
12-Mar-2024
Registration No
6/2024
Registration Date
12-Mar-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, SAVLI
Judge
2-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
Last updated 10-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.M/s. Avid Organics Pvt Ltd., Authorized Director Mr. Dheeraj Jain
Adv. A V SUMANT
-
2.M/s. Poicha Metchem LLp
Adv. A V SUMANT
-
3.M/s. Sudeep Pharma Private Limited
Adv. A V SUMANT
Respondent(s)
-
1.Chetanbhai Shankarsinh Waghela Advocate - B K PANDYA
-
2.Devkiben Shankarsinh Waghela
Adv. B K PANDYA
-
3.Nayanaben Shankarsinh Waghela
Adv. B K PANDYA
-
4.Upendrabhai Shankarsinh Waghela
Adv. B K PANDYA
Case History
-
09-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
05-Mar-2026
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
13-Feb-2026
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
22-Jan-2026
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
09-Jan-2026
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
10-Dec-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
26-Nov-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
29-Oct-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
20-Sep-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
26-Aug-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
13-Aug-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
19-Jul-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
19-Jun-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
22-Apr-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
19-Mar-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
18-Feb-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
07-Jan-2025
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
12-Dec-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
29-Nov-2024
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
18-Oct-2024
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
20-Sep-2024
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
07-Aug-2024
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
12-Jun-2024
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
01-May-2024
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
01-Apr-2024
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
14-Mar-2024
OrderView PDF
Summary The court issued a detailed order in a dispute regarding a road (Z-road) between plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1. The court found that the road exists on the ground and has been in use for over 30 years, with documentary evidence (sale deeds and municipal records) supporting the plaintiffs' right to the road. The court ordered that the road be kept open and directed Defendant No. 1 to remove any obstruction; further, the court clarified that the plaintiffs have an established right to use the road and reserved the right to modify its order based on the final judgment in the main case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-Mar-2024
Summons - Notice
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge And Addl. CJM
-
13-Mar-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
12-Mar-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 6/2024
Summary The court issued a detailed order in a dispute regarding a road (Z-road) between plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1. The court found that the road exists on the ground and has been in use for over 30 years, with documentary evidence (sale deeds and municipal records) supporting the plaintiffs' right to the road. The court ordered that the road be kept open and directed Defendant No. 1 to remove any obstruction; further, the court clarified that the plaintiffs have an established right to use the road and reserved the right to modify its order based on the final judgment in the main case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts