MAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED vs JAYDEVBHAI RAMSANGBHAI SOLANKI — 35/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 51,34. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 10th April 2026.
EXE R - EXECUTION PETITION - REGULAR
CNR: GJBN080000752026
Filing Number
35/2026
Filing Date
15-01-2026
Registration No
35/2026
Registration Date
15-01-2026
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)
MAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
Adv. S S BHATT
Respondent(s)
JAYDEVBHAI RAMSANGBHAI SOLANKI
RAMSANGBHAI NANUBHAI SOLANKI
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
SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR |
| 27-02-2026 | SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR |
| 06-02-2026 | SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR |
| 15-01-2026 | SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: R. EXE. NO. 35 OF 2026 The court dismissed MAS Financial Services Limited's execution petition against respondents Jaydevbhai Ramsangbhai Solanki and Ramsangbhai Nanubhai Solanki for default, finding that the debtors' non-appearance was attributable to the petitioner's failure to ensure proper service of warrant notice. The court held that granting further time would be unjustified given the debtors' previous default despite adequate notice and time afforded, and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate cooperation in advancing the proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R. EXE. NO. 35 OF 2026 The court dismissed MAS Financial Services Limited's execution petition against respondents Jaydevbhai Ramsangbhai Solanki and Ramsangbhai Nanubhai Solanki for default, finding that the debtors' non-appearance was attributable to the petitioner's failure to ensure proper service of warrant notice. The court held that granting further time would be unjustified given the debtors' previous default despite adequate notice and time afforded, and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate cooperation in advancing the proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts