BHIL RAMESHBHAI NAMABHAI vs LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED LADUBEN D/O PARSOTAMBHAI DHEDIYABHAI BHIL PRATAPBHAI ARJUNBHAI Advocate - N I PANCHOLI — 7/2025

Case under Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 07th April 2026.

Case disposed

CMA DC - CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION - DISTRICT COURT

CNR: GJCU080002762025

Filing Number

7/2025

Filing Date

21-Apr-2025

Registration No

7/2025

Registration Date

21-Apr-2025

Court

Addl. Court,Bodeli

Judge

1-Addl. District Judge

Decision Date

07-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 04-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BHIL RAMESHBHAI NAMABHAI

    Adv. R R PRAJAPATI

  2. 2.BHIL DINESHBHAI MANGALDAS

  3. 3.BHIL LAXMANBHAI MANGALDAS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED LADUBEN D/O PARSOTAMBHAI DHEDIYABHAI BHIL PRATAPBHAI ARJUNBHAI Advocate - N I PANCHOLI

  2. 2.BHIL ISHVARBHAI ARJUNBHAI

    Adv. N I PANCHOLI

  3. 3.BHIL DASBHAI ARJUNBHAI

    Adv. N I PANCHOLI

  4. 4.BHIL LALJIBHAI ARJUNBHAI

    Adv. N I PANCHOLI

  5. 5.BHIL MANJULABEN ARJUNBHAI

    Adv. N I PANCHOLI

  6. 6.BHIL SURAJBEN ARJUNBHAI

    Adv. N I PANCHOLI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: CMA DC 07/2025 The court dismissed the appellants' application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a 2022 trial court order that ruled they had no rights to disputed lands and a house in Ghodisimel. The appellants claimed poverty, illiteracy, and forced migration for labor work prevented timely filing of their 2-year-9-month-delayed appeal. The court found their explanation unsubstantiated by evidence and noted they had received the judgment copy in July 2022 yet provided no satisfactory account for the prolonged delay thereafter. Additionally, the appellants' negligence during trial proceedings (failing to appear or file written statements despite service of summons) demonstrated lack of due diligence. The court held that ignorance of law cannot excuse delay absent continuous, good-faith effort, and dismissed the application as lacking sufficient cause under the Limitation Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. District Judge

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Order

    Addl. District Judge

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Order

    Addl. District Judge

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    Order

    Addl. District Judge

  7. 16-Feb-2026

    Order

    Addl. District Judge

  8. 06-Feb-2026

    Order

    Addl. District Judge

  9. 30-Jan-2026

    Order

    Addl. District Judge

  10. 23-Jan-2026

    Order

    Addl. District Judge

  11. 19-Jan-2026

    Order

    Addl. District Judge

  12. 16-Jan-2026

    Order

    Addl. District Judge

  13. 20-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    Addl. District Judge

  14. 29-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    Addl. District Judge

  15. 13-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    Addl. District Judge

  16. 09-Oct-2025

    Final Arguments

    Addl. District Judge

  17. 25-Sep-2025

    Final Arguments

    Addl. District Judge

  18. 08-Sep-2025

    Final Arguments

    Addl. District Judge

  19. 25-Aug-2025

    Final Arguments

    Addl. District Judge

  20. 04-Aug-2025

    Reply

    Addl. District Judge

  21. 19-Jul-2025

    Reply

    Addl. District Judge

  22. 11-Jul-2025

    Reply

    Addl. District Judge

  23. 26-Jun-2025

    Reply

    Addl. District Judge

  24. 13-Jun-2025

    Reply

    Addl. District Judge

  25. 09-May-2025

    Notice To Opponents

    Addl. District Judge

  26. 21-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 21-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 7/2025

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: CMA DC 07/2025 The court dismissed the appellants' application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a 2022 trial court order that ruled they had no rights to disputed lands and a house in Ghodisimel. The appellants claimed poverty, illiteracy, and forced migration for labor work prevented timely filing of their 2-year-9-month-delayed appeal. The court found their explanation unsubstantiated by evidence and noted they had received the judgment copy in July 2022 yet provided no satisfactory account for the prolonged delay thereafter. Additionally, the appellants' negligence during trial proceedings (failing to appear or file written statements despite service of summons) demonstrated lack of due diligence. The court held that ignorance of law cannot excuse delay absent continuous, good-faith effort, and dismissed the application as lacking sufficient cause under the Limitation Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case