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-Jan-2026
Registration No
35/2026
Registration Date
15-Jan-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, SIHOR
Judge
3-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
Decision Date
10-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT
Last updated 31-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
Adv. S S BHATT
Respondent(s)
-
1.JAYDEVBHAI RAMSANGBHAI SOLANKI
-
2.RAMSANGBHAI NANUBHAI SOLANKI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Apr-2026
OrderView PDF
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.
-
10-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
13-Mar-2026
Show-Cause Notice To Judgement Debtor
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
27-Feb-2026
Show-Cause Notice To Judgement Debtor
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
06-Feb-2026
Show-Cause Notice To Judgement Debtor
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
15-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
15-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 35/2026
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.
Explore other courts