MAHESHBHAI ALIAS MAYURBHAI MALABHAI SOLANKI vs Govt. of Gujarat Advocate - M K GOHEL — 44/2026
Case under Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 13th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC.APPLI - SESSIONS
CNR: GJGS030000992026
Filing Number
44/2026
Filing Date
20-Feb-2026
Registration No
44/2026
Registration Date
20-Feb-2026
Court
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, UNA
Judge
2-Addl. District Judge
Decision Date
13-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 23-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11186003220082
Police Station
NAVABANDAR MARINE POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MAHESHBHAI ALIAS MAYURBHAI MALABHAI SOLANKI
Adv. S V KADRI
-
2.AKSHAYBHAI MALABHAI SOLANKI
Adv. S V KADRI
-
3.BHARATBHAI PANCHABHAI SOLANKI
Adv. S V KADRI
Respondent(s)
-
1.Govt. of Gujarat Advocate - M K GOHEL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Mar-2026
Order
Summary The Additional Sessions Court of Una, Gujarat granted condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court found that the appellants (three fishing laborers) had presented a bonafide explanation for the 48-day delay—they were away fishing when the judgment was delivered and only learned of it upon returning—and imposed a condition requiring them to deposit Rs. 6,000 as court cost within seven days before the appeal could be registered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
13-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addl. District Judge
-
09-Mar-2026
Hearing
Addl. District Judge
-
05-Mar-2026
Hearing
Addl. District Judge
-
27-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 44/2026
Summary The Additional Sessions Court of Una, Gujarat granted condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court found that the appellants (three fishing laborers) had presented a bonafide explanation for the 48-day delay—they were away fishing when the judgment was delivered and only learned of it upon returning—and imposed a condition requiring them to deposit Rs. 6,000 as court cost within seven days before the appeal could be registered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts