PGVCL THROUGH DTY ENGINEER vs PRAVINBHAI POPATBHAI SOLANKI — 11/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9,36. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 16th May 2026.

Case disposedSub Stage

EXE R - EXECUTION PETITION - REGULAR

CNR: GJJM110002322026

Filing Number

11/2026

Filing Date

28-Feb-2026

Registration No

11/2026

Registration Date

28-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, KALAVAD

Judge

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

Decision Date

16-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOK ADALAT

Last updated 29-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 9,36

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PGVCL THROUGH DTY ENGINEER

    Adv. P D JADEJA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PRAVINBHAI POPATBHAI SOLANKI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-May-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court dismissed the respondent Pravinbhai Popatbhai Solanki's petition against Section 08 order, finding that all relief sought in the original complaint was already granted and the Section 08 order was properly settled. The court held there was no valid reason to proceed further with the petition and ordered the respondent to pay costs to the utility company in the lower court proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-May-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 12-May-2026

    Order Of Execution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 02-May-2026

    Show-Cause Notice To Judgement Debtor

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 20-Apr-2026

    Show-Cause Notice To Judgement Debtor

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 24-Mar-2026

    Show-Cause Notice To Judgement Debtor

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 10-Mar-2026

    Show-Cause Notice To Judgement Debtor

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 28-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 28-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 11/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed the respondent Pravinbhai Popatbhai Solanki's petition against Section 08 order, finding that all relief sought in the original complaint was already granted and the Section 08 order was properly settled. The court held there was no valid reason to proceed further with the petition and ordered the respondent to pay costs to the utility company in the lower court proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case