HAJABHAI JIVABHAI BAMBHANIYA vs PRAVINBHAI JIVABHAI BAMBHANIYA Advocate - V P PRACHHAK — 54/2025
Case under Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 07th April 2026.
CMA DC - CIVIL MISC. APPLN - DIST COURT
CNR: GJGS010005522025
Filing Number
54/2025
Filing Date
19-May-2025
Registration No
54/2025
Registration Date
19-May-2025
Court
District Court, Veraval
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Decision Date
07-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Last updated 23-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.HAJABHAI JIVABHAI BAMBHANIYA
Adv. J I SHELAT
-
2.HEIRS OF LT. BHANJIBHAI JIVABHAI BAMBHANIYA(Legal Heir)
Adv. J I SHELAT2.
-
3.JIVIBEN W O BHANJIBHAI BAMBHANIYA
Adv. J I SHELAT2.
-
4.ALKESHBHAI BHANJIBHAI BAMBHANIYA
Adv. J I SHELAT2.
-
5.HANSABEN D O BHANJIBHAI BAMBHANIYA
Adv. J I SHELAT2.
-
6.KISHORBHAI BHANJIBHAI BAMBHANIYA
Adv. J I SHELAT2.
-
7.PRITIBEN D O BHANJIBHAI BAMBHANIYA
Adv. J I SHELAT
-
8.HEIRS OF LT. VIJANANDBHAI JIVABHAI BAMBHANIYA(Legal Heir)
Adv. J I SHELAT3.
-
9.MEIBEN W O VIJANANDBHAI BAMBHANIYA
Adv. J I SHELAT3.
-
10.KANJIBHAI VIJANANDBHAI BAMBHANIYA
Adv. J I SHELAT3.
-
11.PRATAPBHAI VIJANANDBHAI BAMBHANIYA
Adv. J I SHELAT3.
-
12.BHAVNABEN D O VIJANANDBHAI BAMBHANIYA
Adv. J I SHELAT3.
-
13.MITESHBHAI URFE NITESH VIJANANDBHAI BAMBHANIYA
Adv. J I SHELAT3.
-
14.BHAVESHBHAI URFE BHAVISNH VIJANANDBHAI BAMBHANIYA
Adv. J I SHELAT
-
15.HEIRS OF LT. BHUPATBHAI JIVABHAI BAMBHANIYA(Legal Heir)
Adv. J I SHELAT4.
-
16.LAKHIBEN W O BHUPATBHAI BAMBHANIYA
Adv. J4.
-
17.ANJUBEN URFE ANJANABEN D O BHUPATBHAI BAMBHANIYA
Adv. J I SHELAT4.
-
18.SANGITABEN D O BHUPATBHAI BAMBHANIYA
Adv. J I SHELAT4.
-
19.VIJAYBHAI BHUPATBHAI BAMBHANIYA
Adv. J I SHELAT4.
-
20.NIMUBEN D O BHUPATBHAI BAMBHANIYA
Adv. J I SHELAT4.
-
21.SANDIPBHAI BHUPATBHAI BAMBHANIYA
Adv. J I SHELAT
Respondent(s)
-
1.PRAVINBHAI JIVABHAI BAMBHANIYA Advocate - V P PRACHHAK
-
2.BACHIBEN D O JIVABHAI BAMBHANIYA
Adv. V P PRACHHAK
-
3.GAGIBEN D O JIVABHAI BAMBHANIYA
Adv. V P PRACHHAK
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
-
07-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
The court dismissed the applicants' plea to condone a 766-day delay in filing an appeal against a 2023 probate judgment. The court found the applicants' explanation insufficient because they had initially appeared through counsel and filed objections, making their claim of complete unawareness implausible, and they failed to demonstrate diligent action after the judgment was passed. Following settled legal principles, the court held that delay cannot be excused on grounds of merit alone and that parties cannot "sleep over their rights." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal District Judge
-
09-Mar-2026
Final Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
26-Feb-2026
Final Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
05-Feb-2026
Final Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
13-Jan-2026
Final Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
18-Dec-2025
Final Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
27-Nov-2025
Final Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
30-Oct-2025
Final Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
01-Oct-2025
Final Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
04-Sep-2025
Final Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
25-Aug-2025
Final Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
13-Aug-2025
Final Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
30-Jul-2025
Final Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
15-Jul-2025
Final Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
27-Jun-2025
Final Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
18-Jun-2025
Reply
Principal District Judge
-
19-May-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-May-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 54/2025
The court dismissed the applicants' plea to condone a 766-day delay in filing an appeal against a 2023 probate judgment. The court found the applicants' explanation insufficient because they had initially appeared through counsel and filed objections, making their claim of complete unawareness implausible, and they failed to demonstrate diligent action after the judgment was passed. Following settled legal principles, the court held that delay cannot be excused on grounds of merit alone and that parties cannot "sleep over their rights." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts