ASHOKKUMAR VIJAYSINH BAROT vs ADM AND SONS INFRA PVT LTD Advocate - null( — CRA/317/2026

Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 115. Status: 192-Notice & Adjourned Matters. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.

192-Notice & Adjourned Matters Next hearing 16-Jun-2026 this date has passed

CNR: GJHC240398742026

Filing Number

CRA/16742/2026

Filing Date

01-Jun-2026

Registration No

CRA/317/2026

Registration Date

04-Jun-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr.justice L. S. Pirzada

Coram

Honourable Mr.justice L. S. Pirzada

Bench Type

SINGLE

Category

272-SJ - CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 ( 272 )

Sub-Category

1226-SJ - CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - REJECTION OF THE PLAINT UNDER - ORDER - 7 RULE 11 ( 1226 )

Judicial Branch

JUDICIAL

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 115

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ASHOKKUMAR VIJAYSINH BAROT

    Adv. MR. JAY M THAKKAR(

  2. 2.,MR. PR BRAHMBHATT(

  3. 3.,MR. PR BRAHMBHATT(

  4. 4., ,MR. PR BRAHMBHATT(

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ADM AND SONS INFRA PVT LTD Advocate - null(

  2. 2.RAMKISHOR BHANWARLAL SUTHAR

Case History

  1. 16-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 16-Jun-2026

    192-Notice & Adjourned Matters

    Honourable Mr.justice L. S. Pirzada

  3. 05-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Biren Vaishnav,honourable Mr.justice L. S. PirzadaView PDF

    Case Summary: CRA/317/2026 Outcome: Civil Revision Application allowed in part; notice issued to respondents returnable 16.06.2026; further proceedings in Special Civil Suit No.59 of 2025 stayed pending hearing. Key Issue: The trial court rejected defendant Barot's Order VII Rule 11 application (challenging suit's maintainability) after granting the plaintiff an adjournment to file a reply, then proceeded ex-parte to decide the application and simultaneously approved court commissioner appointment on 08.05.2026. Finding: Justice Pirzada found procedural irregularity—the court granted adjournment but then passed orders on the same day without giving the defendant opportunity to present arguments, warranting reconsideration of the revision application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 05-Jun-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 01-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRA/317/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRA/317/2026 Outcome: Civil Revision Application allowed in part; notice issued to respondents returnable 16.06.2026; further proceedings in Special Civil Suit No.59 of 2025 stayed pending hearing. Key Issue: The trial court rejected defendant Barot's Order VII Rule 11 application (challenging suit's maintainability) after granting the plaintiff an adjournment to file a reply, then proceeded ex-parte to decide the application and simultaneously approved court commissioner appointment on 08.05.2026. Finding: Justice Pirzada found procedural irregularity—the court granted adjournment but then passed orders on the same day without giving the defendant opportunity to present arguments, warranting reconsideration of the revision application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case