DEPUTY ENGINEER SHRI DARSHANKUMAR MADHUKAR MAJMUDAR (UGVCL) DEHGAM (RULAR) vs KIRANSINH UDESINH CHAUHAN — 220/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 19. Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 03rd April 2026.

Case disposed

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJGN030024342023

Filing Number

220/2023

Filing Date

10-Oct-2023

Registration No

220/2023

Registration Date

10-Oct-2023

Court

TALUKA COURT, DEHGAM

Judge

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

Decision Date

03-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 19

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DEPUTY ENGINEER SHRI DARSHANKUMAR MADHUKAR MAJMUDAR (UGVCL) DEHGAM (RULAR)

    Adv. J T PATEL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KIRANSINH UDESINH CHAUHAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Apr-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: RCS 220/2023 Court Decision: The Primary Civil Court, Dahegam, partially allowed the plaintiff's (UGVCL) claim against the defendant (Kiransinh Udesinh Chauhan). The court decreed that the defendant must pay Rs. 12,104.39 in electricity bill arrears along with 6% annual interest from the bill date until full payment, plus court costs to be recovered from the defendant. Key Reasoning: The court found that the defendant had unlawfully consumed electricity (stealing 440 kilowatts detected during an inspection), failed to pay the issued bill despite legal notice, and provided no valid defense to dispute the debt. The defendant's absence during proceedings and failure to contest the plaintiff's documentary evidence resulted in judgment against him. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 03-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  5. 05-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  6. 08-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  7. 17-Dec-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  8. 06-Nov-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  9. 09-Oct-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  10. 11-Sep-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  11. 21-Aug-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  12. 25-Jul-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  13. 20-Jun-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  14. 24-Apr-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  15. 13-Mar-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  16. 12-Feb-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  17. 08-Jan-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  18. 20-Nov-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  19. 27-Sep-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  20. 03-Sep-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  21. 30-Jul-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  22. 29-Jul-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  23. 10-Jun-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  24. 01-Apr-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  25. 19-Feb-2024

    Issues

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  26. 15-Jan-2024

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  27. 04-Dec-2023

    Summons - Notice

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.

  28. 12-Oct-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  29. 10-Oct-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 220/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RCS 220/2023 Court Decision: The Primary Civil Court, Dahegam, partially allowed the plaintiff's (UGVCL) claim against the defendant (Kiransinh Udesinh Chauhan). The court decreed that the defendant must pay Rs. 12,104.39 in electricity bill arrears along with 6% annual interest from the bill date until full payment, plus court costs to be recovered from the defendant. Key Reasoning: The court found that the defendant had unlawfully consumed electricity (stealing 440 kilowatts detected during an inspection), failed to pay the issued bill despite legal notice, and provided no valid defense to dispute the debt. The defendant's absence during proceedings and failure to contest the plaintiff's documentary evidence resulted in judgment against him. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case