P.G.V.C.L. GADHADA RURAL 2 vs ARVINDBHAI DEVJIBHAI SOLANKI — 59/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 21. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed

EXE R - EXECUTION PETITION - REGULAR

CNR: GJBT030002212026

Filing Number

59/2026

Filing Date

21-Jan-2026

Registration No

59/2026

Registration Date

21-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, GADHADA

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 21

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.P.G.V.C.L. GADHADA RURAL 2

    Adv. C R TRIVEDI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ARVINDBHAI DEVJIBHAI SOLANKI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court dismissed the case under CPC Rule 21 and Rule 105(2) due to the petitioner's (creditor's) non-appearance and failure to pursue proceedings. The court found that despite the case being pending for over six months, the creditor showed no interest in advancing the case and remained absent, making it impossible to proceed fairly. The dismissal was ordered in accordance with judicial directions aimed at reducing case pendency in courts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-May-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 22-Apr-2026

    Show-Cause Notice To Judgement Debtor

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 08-Apr-2026

    Show-Cause Notice To Judgement Debtor

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 16-Mar-2026

    Show-Cause Notice To Judgement Debtor

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 19-Feb-2026

    Show-Cause Notice To Judgement Debtor

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 21-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 21-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 59/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed the case under CPC Rule 21 and Rule 105(2) due to the petitioner's (creditor's) non-appearance and failure to pursue proceedings. The court found that despite the case being pending for over six months, the creditor showed no interest in advancing the case and remained absent, making it impossible to proceed fairly. The dismissal was ordered in accordance with judicial directions aimed at reducing case pendency in courts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case