RATILAL POPATLAL GANDHI(Legal Heir) vs GANDHI DALSUKHDAS POPATLAL Advocate - P S PAGI — 23/2025
Case under Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5,. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 11th March 2026.
CMA SC - CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION - SR/CIVIL/SMALL CAUSE COU
CNR: GJAR030013902025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
23/2025
Filing Date
15-07-2025
Registration No
23/2025
Registration Date
15-07-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, BHILODA
Judge
3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RATILAL POPATLAL GANDHI(Legal Heir)
Adv. B P PATEL1.
MINABEN RATILAL GANDHI 1.
GANDHI ANILABEN RATILAL 1.
GANDHI NITINKUMAR RATILAL 1.
GANDHI SANJAYKUMAR RATILAL 1.
GANDHI JAYABEN RATILAL
BABUBEN POPATLAL GHANDHI(Legal Heir) 2.
RAMESH CHANDULAL MODI 2.
KANUBHAI CHANDUBHAI MODI
MADHUBEN SAKALCHAND VORA(Legal Heir) 3.
RAMESHBHAI SHAKALCHAND VORA 3.
ASHOKKUMAR SHAKALCHAND VORA
KAMALABEN POPATLAL GANDHI
Respondent(s)
GANDHI DALSUKHDAS POPATLAL Advocate - P S PAGI
JADEJA RAJENDRSINH SURAJMALSINH
Hearing History
Judge: 3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
NOTICE TO OPPONENTS
NOTICE TO OPPONENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 23-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 06-02-2026 | NOTICE TO OPPONENTS | |
| 22-01-2026 | NOTICE TO OPPONENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Gujarat High Court rejected the petitioner's application seeking condonation of delay (9 years, 9 months, and 15 days) in filing a restoration application for a suit dismissed in 2015. The court found that the petitioner failed to disclose the source and date of knowledge of dismissal, showed persistent non-prosecution despite service of notices, and provided only unsubstantiated blame on counsel without taking prompt remedial action—factors that did not constitute sufficient cause for delay under the Limitation Act's Section 5. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Gujarat High Court rejected the petitioner's application seeking condonation of delay (9 years, 9 months, and 15 days) in filing a restoration application for a suit dismissed in 2015. The court found that the petitioner failed to disclose the source and date of knowledge of dismissal, showed persistent non-prosecution despite service of notices, and provided only unsubstantiated blame on counsel without taking prompt remedial action—factors that did not constitute sufficient cause for delay under the Limitation Act's Section 5. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts