PGVCL SANOSARA SUB DIVISION SIHOR vs CHANDRASINH AANTUBHAI GOHIL — 24/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 51,34. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 13th March 2026.
EXE R - EXECUTION PETITION - REGULAR
CNR: GJBN080000572026
Filing Number
24/2026
Filing Date
13-01-2026
Registration No
24/2026
Registration Date
13-01-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, SIHOR
Judge
3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PGVCL SANOSARA SUB DIVISION SIHOR
Adv. P B HARMANI
Respondent(s)
CHANDRASINH AANTUBHAI GOHIL
Hearing History
Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR
SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR
SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 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. 24 OF 2026 The court dismissed the execution petition filed by PGVCL Sanosara Sub Division Sihor against respondent Chandrasinh Aantubhai Gohil for default, holding that the respondent's failure to comply with court directions and cooperate in proceedings justified a dismissal for default (Dismiss for Default). The court noted that despite being granted time to file necessary documents and clear its position, the respondent failed to take steps required by the decree-holder, making dismissal the appropriate remedy under law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R. EXE. NO. 24 OF 2026 The court dismissed the execution petition filed by PGVCL Sanosara Sub Division Sihor against respondent Chandrasinh Aantubhai Gohil for default, holding that the respondent's failure to comply with court directions and cooperate in proceedings justified a dismissal for default (Dismiss for Default). The court noted that despite being granted time to file necessary documents and clear its position, the respondent failed to take steps required by the decree-holder, making dismissal the appropriate remedy under law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts