NIPABEN W/O NARESHBHAI MANEKLAL RAJPUROHIT (BRAHMAN) vs RAJUBHAI MANKABHAI RABARI — 12/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 36. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

MACEX - MAC EXECUTION PETITION

CNR: GJAR010004002025

Filing Number

12/2025

Filing Date

05-Feb-2025

Registration No

12/2025

Registration Date

05-Feb-2025

Court

DISTRICT COURT, MODASA

Judge

1-Addl.district And Sessions Judge

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 36

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NIPABEN W/O NARESHBHAI MANEKLAL RAJPUROHIT (BRAHMAN)

    Adv. K M MARIVAD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAJUBHAI MANKABHAI RABARI

  2. 2.MARIVAD DHULABHAI ALKHABHAI

    Adv. G M PATEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 12/2025 Court Decision: The revision petition filed by petitioner Nipaben is dismissed. The court upholds the judgment holding defendants Rajubhai Mankabhai Rabari and Marivad Dhulabhai Alkhabhai jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 3,21,200 with 8% interest and costs. A settlement of Rs. 1,50,000 already paid by the petitioner is credited, and the remaining amount must be recovered; the petitioner is barred from claiming any compensation from the vehicle owner or driver related to an earlier motor accident case (M.P. No. 60/2017). Key Reasoning: The court found that the settlement amount was reasonable and that once settlement terms were accepted and documented, the petitioner cannot pursue further claims against the respondents. The judgment was based on the principles that settlement agreements bar subsequent litigation on the same subject matter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  4. 01-Apr-2026

    Order

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  5. 30-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  7. 05-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  8. 12-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  9. 02-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  10. 17-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  11. 09-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  12. 03-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  13. 23-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  14. 20-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  15. 29-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  16. 14-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  17. 01-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  18. 10-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  19. 12-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  20. 21-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  21. 02-Aug-2025

    Reply

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  22. 05-Jul-2025

    Reply

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  23. 11-Jun-2025

    Reply

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  24. 14-May-2025

    Show-Cause Notice To Judgement Debtor

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  25. 09-Apr-2025

    Show-Cause Notice To Judgement Debtor

    Addl.district And Sessions Judge

  26. 06-Mar-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 05-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 12/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 12/2025 Court Decision: The revision petition filed by petitioner Nipaben is dismissed. The court upholds the judgment holding defendants Rajubhai Mankabhai Rabari and Marivad Dhulabhai Alkhabhai jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 3,21,200 with 8% interest and costs. A settlement of Rs. 1,50,000 already paid by the petitioner is credited, and the remaining amount must be recovered; the petitioner is barred from claiming any compensation from the vehicle owner or driver related to an earlier motor accident case (M.P. No. 60/2017). Key Reasoning: The court found that the settlement amount was reasonable and that once settlement terms were accepted and documented, the petitioner cannot pursue further claims against the respondents. The judgment was based on the principles that settlement agreements bar subsequent litigation on the same subject matter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case