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.
CMA SC - CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION - SR/CIVIL/SMALL CAUSE COU
CNR: GJBH050007542024
Filing Number
4/2024
Filing Date
18-03-2024
Registration No
4/2024
Registration Date
18-03-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, VAGRA
Judge
1-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
20th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
LEGAL HEIRS OF BAHADURBHAI @ BADHARBHAI NARSINHBHAI UKABHAI PATEL(Legal Heir)
Adv. J H KADRI1.
BHANUBEN BADHARBHAI PATEL 1.
NIRMABEN BADHARBHAI PATEL 1.
NILESHBHAI BADHARBHAI PATEL 1.
BAKULBHAI BADHARBHAI PATEL
Respondent(s)
LEGAL HEIRS OF NARSANGBHAI LALJIBHAI Advocate - .
UDESING NARSANGBHAI
Adv. V D ROHIT
LEGAL HEIRS OF BHARATABHAI NARSANGBHAI(Legal Heir)
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 24-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 20-01-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 20-12-2025 | JUDGEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts