PGVCL SANOSARA SUB DIVISION SIHOR vs RAMESHBHAI NARANBHAI PARMAR — 4/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 51,34. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 10th April 2026.
EXE R - EXECUTION PETITION - REGULAR
CNR: GJBN080000352026
Filing Number
4/2026
Filing Date
13-01-2026
Registration No
4/2026
Registration Date
13-01-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, SIHOR
Judge
3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PGVCL SANOSARA SUB DIVISION SIHOR
Adv. P B HARMANI
Respondent(s)
RAMESHBHAI NARANBHAI PARMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT
SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR
SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR
SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT |
| 19-02-2026 | SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR |
| 05-02-2026 | SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR |
| 13-01-2026 | SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: R. EXE. NO. 04 OF 2026 The court dismissed the execution petition filed by PGVCL Sanosara Sub Division Sihor against Rameshbhai Naranbhai Parmar for default (Dismissal for Default). The court found that despite being given multiple opportunities and notices to appear for warrant execution proceedings, the creditor failed to present itself, and the debtor remained absent without making genuine efforts to comply with the court's directions. The court held that granting further time under these circumstances would be unjustified and unreasonable, warranting dismissal of the execution case due to the creditor's default and lack of diligence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R. EXE. NO. 04 OF 2026 The court dismissed the execution petition filed by PGVCL Sanosara Sub Division Sihor against Rameshbhai Naranbhai Parmar for default (Dismissal for Default). The court found that despite being given multiple opportunities and notices to appear for warrant execution proceedings, the creditor failed to present itself, and the debtor remained absent without making genuine efforts to comply with the court's directions. The court held that granting further time under these circumstances would be unjustified and unreasonable, warranting dismissal of the execution case due to the creditor's default and lack of diligence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts