LEGAL HEIRS OF BAHADURBHAI @ BADHARBHAI NARSINHBHAI UKABHAI PATEL(Legal Heir) vs LEGAL HEIRS OF NARSANGBHAI LALJIBHAI Advocate - . — 4/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9,R4. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 20th March 2026.

Case disposed

CMA SC - CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION - SR/CIVIL/SMALL CAUSE COU

CNR: GJBH050007542024

Filing Number

4/2024

Filing Date

18-Mar-2024

Registration No

4/2024

Registration Date

18-Mar-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, VAGRA

Judge

1-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

20-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 9,R4

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.LEGAL HEIRS OF BAHADURBHAI @ BADHARBHAI NARSINHBHAI UKABHAI PATEL(Legal Heir)

    Adv. J H KADRI1.

  2. 2.BHANUBEN BADHARBHAI PATEL 1.

  3. 3.NIRMABEN BADHARBHAI PATEL 1.

  4. 4.NILESHBHAI BADHARBHAI PATEL 1.

  5. 5.BAKULBHAI BADHARBHAI PATEL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.LEGAL HEIRS OF NARSANGBHAI LALJIBHAI Advocate - .

  2. 2.UDESING NARSANGBHAI

    Adv. V D ROHIT

  3. 3.LEGAL HEIRS OF BHARATABHAI NARSANGBHAI(Legal Heir)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case 4/2024 Summary: The court allowed the restoration application of Civil Suit No. 93/2011, which had been dismissed for default in 2022 due to the plaintiffs' absence. The court adopted a liberal approach, finding the plaintiffs' explanations for the five-month delay reasonable (unaware of dismissal, residing outside village, unfamiliar with legal procedures) and determined that denying restoration would irreparably harm their right to merits-based adjudication of the property dispute. The suit was restored subject to the condition that plaintiffs deposit Rs. 5,000 as costs within 15 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 24-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 20-Jan-2026

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 20-Dec-2025

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 25-Nov-2025

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 01-Nov-2025

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 23-Sep-2025

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 19-Aug-2025

    Final Arguments

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 15-Jul-2025

    Final Arguments

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 10-Jun-2025

    Final Arguments

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 29-Apr-2025

    Final Arguments

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 25-Mar-2025

    Final Arguments

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 25-Feb-2025

    Final Arguments

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 04-Feb-2025

    Final Arguments

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 31-Dec-2024

    Reply

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 02-Dec-2024

    Reply

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 28-Oct-2024

    Reply

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 01-Oct-2024

    Reply

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 02-Sep-2024

    Reply

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 29-Jul-2024

    Reply

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 25-Jun-2024

    Notice To Opponents

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  25. 30-Apr-2024

    Notice To Opponents

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  26. 20-Mar-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 18-Mar-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 4/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case 4/2024 Summary: The court allowed the restoration application of Civil Suit No. 93/2011, which had been dismissed for default in 2022 due to the plaintiffs' absence. The court adopted a liberal approach, finding the plaintiffs' explanations for the five-month delay reasonable (unaware of dismissal, residing outside village, unfamiliar with legal procedures) and determined that denying restoration would irreparably harm their right to merits-based adjudication of the property dispute. The suit was restored subject to the condition that plaintiffs deposit Rs. 5,000 as costs within 15 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case