JIVABHAI NARANBHAI VADHER vs PITHABHAI MAYABHAI VADHER Advocate - V A KHAKHAR — 3/2014
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 010. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 19th May 2026.
EXE R - EXECUTION PETITION - REGULAR
CNR: GJGS060000052014
Filing Number
3/2014
Filing Date
29-03-2014
Registration No
3/2014
Registration Date
29-03-2014
Court
TALUKA COURT, KODINAR
Judge
4-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
19th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
JIVABHAI NARANBHAI VADHER
Adv. H G RATHOD
UKABHAI NARANBHAI VADHER
PRAVINBHAI NARANBHAI VADHER
Respondent(s)
PITHABHAI MAYABHAI VADHER Advocate - V A KHAKHAR
Hearing History
Judge: 4-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
ORDER OF EXECUTION
ORDER OF EXECUTION
ORDER OF EXECUTION
ORDER OF EXECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-05-2026 | ORDER OF EXECUTION |
| 05-05-2026 | ORDER OF EXECUTION |
| 18-04-2026 | ORDER OF EXECUTION |
| 09-04-2026 | ORDER OF EXECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 3/2014 The court rejected the petitioners' application to enforce a 2010 settlement agreement against the respondent for water rights and well maintenance. The court found that the petitioners failed to produce substantive evidence demonstrating that the respondent willfully violated the court-approved settlement terms, noting that mere police complaints without corroborating proof were insufficient. The court also observed that the petitioners had not provided specific details about scheduling disputes regarding water-sharing timings. Consequently, the court dismissed the enforcement petition, finding insufficient grounds under CPC Order 21, Rule 32 to impose civil imprisonment or property attachment on the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 3/2014 The court rejected the petitioners' application to enforce a 2010 settlement agreement against the respondent for water rights and well maintenance. The court found that the petitioners failed to produce substantive evidence demonstrating that the respondent willfully violated the court-approved settlement terms, noting that mere police complaints without corroborating proof were insufficient. The court also observed that the petitioners had not provided specific details about scheduling disputes regarding water-sharing timings. Consequently, the court dismissed the enforcement petition, finding insufficient grounds under CPC Order 21, Rule 32 to impose civil imprisonment or property attachment on the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts