ANDA DHIRA GAMAR vs IBRAHIMKHAN NURKHAN BALOCH Advocate - S M SWAMI — 12/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O21,R39. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 24th March 2026.
MACEX - MAC EXECUTION PETITION
CNR: GJBK010001492026
Filing Number
12/2026
Filing Date
16-Jan-2026
Registration No
12/2026
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.ANDA DHIRA GAMAR
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 Anda Dhira Gamar's application for default (D.D.) due to repeated non-appearance on three scheduled dates (12/03/2026, 17/03/2026, 20/03/2026) without providing necessary documentation. The court noted that the petitioner failed to submit an inventory and schedule of the respondent's property to be attached, nor any attachment warrant application, making further proceedings impossible. The petitioner was permitted to file a fresh application in the future after obtaining the required 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. 12/2026
The court dismissed the petitioner Anda Dhira Gamar's application for default (D.D.) due to repeated non-appearance on three scheduled dates (12/03/2026, 17/03/2026, 20/03/2026) without providing necessary documentation. The court noted that the petitioner failed to submit an inventory and schedule of the respondent's property to be attached, nor any attachment warrant application, making further proceedings impossible. The petitioner was permitted to file a fresh application in the future after obtaining the required inventory and schedule from the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts