JIVAJI AMTHAJI DAYANI vs IBRAHIMKHAN NURKHAN BALOCH Advocate - S M SWAMI — 7/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O21,R39. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 24th March 2026.
MACEX - MAC EXECUTION PETITION
CNR: GJBK010001442026
Filing Number
7/2026
Filing Date
16-Jan-2026
Registration No
7/2026
Registration Date
16-Jan-2026
Court
DISTRICT COURT PALANPUR
Judge
6-2nd Addl District Judge
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT
Last updated 27-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.JIVAJI AMTHAJI DAYANI
Adv. A D MODASIYA
Respondent(s)
-
1.IBRAHIMKHAN NURKHAN BALOCH Advocate - S M SWAMI
-
2.RAJAKBHAI N. AAGLODIYA
Adv. S M SWAMI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
The court dismissed the petitioner Jivaji Amthaji Dayani's application for default (D.D.) due to non-appearance on multiple hearing dates (12/03/2026, 17/03/2026, 20/03/2026). The court noted the petitioner failed to provide necessary documentation including property inventory and schedule of attachment required to execute the decree against the respondent. The petitioner was permitted to file a fresh application in future after obtaining the required property inventory and schedule from the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Disposed
2nd Addl District Judge
-
20-Mar-2026
Hearing On Objections
2nd Addl District Judge
-
17-Mar-2026
Hearing On Objections
2nd Addl District Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Hearing On Objections
2nd Addl District Judge
-
02-Mar-2026
Hearing On Objections
2nd Addl District Judge
-
25-Feb-2026
Hearing On Objections
2nd Addl District Judge
-
13-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 7/2026
The court dismissed the petitioner Jivaji Amthaji Dayani's application for default (D.D.) due to non-appearance on multiple hearing dates (12/03/2026, 17/03/2026, 20/03/2026). The court noted the petitioner failed to provide necessary documentation including property inventory and schedule of attachment required to execute the decree against the respondent. The petitioner was permitted to file a fresh application in future after obtaining the required property inventory and schedule from the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts