BRIJESH BHAVESHBHAI PANDYA vs DIPALI BRIJESHBHAI PANDYA Advocate - A V PARMAR — 316/2026
Case under Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 25th May 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJJM010008142026
Filing Number
316/2026
Filing Date
07-03-2026
Registration No
316/2026
Registration Date
07-03-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT JANMAGAR
Judge
16-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
25th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BRIJESH BHAVESHBHAI PANDYA
Adv. D N BHEDA
HEMLATABEN BHAVESHBHAI PANDYA
Adv. D N BHEDA
BHAVESH KISHORBHAI PANDYA
Adv. D N BHEDA
RADHIKA HARITBHAI RAVAL
Adv. D N BHEDA
GITABEN PRAMODBHAI DAVE
Adv. D N BHEDA
Respondent(s)
DIPALI BRIJESHBHAI PANDYA Advocate - A V PARMAR
VEDANSHI BRIJESHBHAI PANDYA
Adv. A V PARMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 16-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 22-05-2026 | HEARING |
| 14-05-2026 | HEARING |
| 02-05-2026 | HEARING |
| 22-04-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar granted an application to condone a 140-day delay in filing an appeal against a partially allowed order from September 20, 2025. The court found the applicants' reasons genuine—elderly ill parents and the lead applicant's contract-based employment as an Ayurvedic doctor prevented timely legal consultation—and applied established judicial principles favoring substantial justice over technical procedural grounds. The delay was condoned on condition of depositing ₹7,000 with the DLSA, Jamnagar, and the appeal was directed to be registered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar granted an application to condone a 140-day delay in filing an appeal against a partially allowed order from September 20, 2025. The court found the applicants' reasons genuine—elderly ill parents and the lead applicant's contract-based employment as an Ayurvedic doctor prevented timely legal consultation—and applied established judicial principles favoring substantial justice over technical procedural grounds. The delay was condoned on condition of depositing ₹7,000 with the DLSA, Jamnagar, and the appeal was directed to be registered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts