GUJRAT GRAMIN BANK DEESA BRANCH MANAGER SHRI NIMESHKUMAR DANAJI SANKHALA vs RABARI HAJAJI SAMELAJI — 133/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26,. Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 08th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJBK040053532025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
133/2025
Filing Date
16-09-2025
Registration No
133/2025
Registration Date
16-09-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, DEESA
Judge
16-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
08th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GUJRAT GRAMIN BANK DEESA BRANCH MANAGER SHRI NIMESHKUMAR DANAJI SANKHALA
Adv. H D TRIVEDI
Respondent(s)
RABARI HAJAJI SAMELAJI
VASNABHAI HAJABHAI RABARI
RABARI KASNABHAI HAJAJI
RABARI KHENGARBHAI HAJAJI
Hearing History
Judge: 16-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 03-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 27-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 10-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 02-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Judgment Summary The Additional Senior Civil Judge at Deesa ruled in favor of Gujarat Gramin Bank, ordering defendants to pay Rs. 9,06,469.07 as outstanding agricultural loan principal and interest at 6% per annum from the suit's institution date. The court accepted the bank's documentary evidence (loan agreements, mortgage deed, and ledger statements) despite defendants' non-appearance, and drew adverse inferences against them, thereby ordering they also bear all litigation costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Judgment Summary The Additional Senior Civil Judge at Deesa ruled in favor of Gujarat Gramin Bank, ordering defendants to pay Rs. 9,06,469.07 as outstanding agricultural loan principal and interest at 6% per annum from the suit's institution date. The court accepted the bank's documentary evidence (loan agreements, mortgage deed, and ledger statements) despite defendants' non-appearance, and drew adverse inferences against them, thereby ordering they also bear all litigation costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts