PGVCL SANOSARA SUB DIVISION SIHOR vs GUJ. AAMBABHAI PAMABHAI MAKWANA NA VARAS AMRUTBHAI AAMBABHAI MAKWANA — 25/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 51,34. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 10th April 2026.
EXE R - EXECUTION PETITION - REGULAR
CNR: GJBN080000582026
Filing Number
25/2026
Filing Date
13-01-2026
Registration No
25/2026
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)
GUJ. AAMBABHAI PAMABHAI MAKWANA NA VARAS AMRUTBHAI AAMBABHAI MAKWANA
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
The court dismissed the petition filed by PGVCL Sanosara Sub Division Sihor for default, as the respondent (Amrutbhai Aambabhai Makwana) failed to appear despite being served notice and given adequate opportunity to participate in proceedings. The court found that the respondent's non-cooperation and absence prevented execution of the warrant for property attachment, and that extending further time would be unjustified and improper given the respondent's default. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court dismissed the petition filed by PGVCL Sanosara Sub Division Sihor for default, as the respondent (Amrutbhai Aambabhai Makwana) failed to appear despite being served notice and given adequate opportunity to participate in proceedings. The court found that the respondent's non-cooperation and absence prevented execution of the warrant for property attachment, and that extending further time would be unjustified and improper given the respondent's default. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts