BHAGHUBEN RANABHAI LEGAL HAIR OF LATE RANABHAI JADAVBHAI SOLANKI vs DANJIBHAI AMARABHAI BHALIYA Advocate - J D GHELANI — 140/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 31,34,38. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 28th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJBN030011282022
Filing Number
140/2022
Filing Date
16-07-2022
Registration No
140/2022
Registration Date
16-07-2022
Court
TALUKA COURT, GHOGHA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BHAGHUBEN RANABHAI LEGAL HAIR OF LATE RANABHAI JADAVBHAI SOLANKI
Adv. P P JADEJA
SOLANKI GHUSABHAI RANABHAI
SOLANKI DULABHAI RANABHAI
SOLANKI VIJAYBHAI RANABHAI
SOLANKI HARESHBHAI RANABHAI
SOLANKI BUDHABHAI RANABHAI
Respondent(s)
DANJIBHAI AMARABHAI BHALIYA Advocate - J D GHELANI
KAJALBA KIRATSANG W/O. HARENDRASINH RANUBHA GOHIL
Adv. V R GOHEL
LEENABA NAVALSANG @ NAVALSINH JADEJA W/O. PRATIKRAJSINH GOHIL
RAJDIPISNH NAVALSANG @ NAVALSANG JADEJA
TEJALBA NAVALSANG @ NAVALSINH JADEJA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION |
| 16-01-2026 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION |
| 26-11-2025 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION |
| 26-09-2025 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court dismissed the petitioners' case for default due to their continued non-appearance and lack of prosecution despite multiple hearings on issues 5, 6, and 37. The petitioners, who sought to cancel sale deeds and obtain a permanent injunction, failed to demonstrate commitment to the case, prompting the court to dismiss it for want of effective prosecution. The petitioners were ordered to bear the costs of the litigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court dismissed the petitioners' case for default due to their continued non-appearance and lack of prosecution despite multiple hearings on issues 5, 6, and 37. The petitioners, who sought to cancel sale deeds and obtain a permanent injunction, failed to demonstrate commitment to the case, prompting the court to dismiss it for want of effective prosecution. The petitioners were ordered to bear the costs of the litigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts