ALPA CUNTRUCTION CO. HARILAL BHIKHABHAI THROUGH PARTNER RASIKBHAI GODALIYA vs DISTRICT PANCHAYAT JUNAGADH SUMMONS THROUGH DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER Advocate - S B JOSHI — 45/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 19th May 2026.
RCA - REGULAR CIVIL APPEAL
CNR: GJJN010015932024
Filing Number
45/2024
Filing Date
18-Sep-2024
Registration No
45/2024
Registration Date
18-Sep-2024
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT JUNAGADH
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Decision Date
19-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Last updated 27-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.ALPA CUNTRUCTION CO. HARILAL BHIKHABHAI THROUGH PARTNER RASIKBHAI GODALIYA
Adv. K B SANGHAVI
-
2.DAMJIBHAI HARIBHAI PARTNER OF ALPA CUNSTRUCTION
-
3.RASIKLAL HARIBHAI
Respondent(s)
-
1.DISTRICT PANCHAYAT JUNAGADH SUMMONS THROUGH DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER Advocate - S B JOSHI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
19-May-2026
Judegement
Summary: ALPA CONSTRUCTION CO. v. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT JUNAGADH (RCA 45/2024) Court Decision: The Principal District Judge, Junagadh quashed and set aside the trial court's judgment and decree dated 30.08.2024, remanding the case back to the trial court for fresh adjudication. Key Reasoning: The appellate court found that the trial court failed to frame a material issue arising from the defendants' specific pleading that they had never submitted any tender or executed any contract with the plaintiff. Although the trial court had permitted handwriting expert examination via order below Exhibit 247 (acknowledging the dispute's materiality), it later refused to discuss this critical issue in the judgment, citing lack of a formal application by defendants to recast issues. The court held this approach violated Order XIV of the CPC, 1908, which mandates courts to frame issues based on parties' pleadings regardless of formal applications. Since contract execution is fundamental to the plaintiff's claim for recovery of ₹6,29,140.72, the matter requires fresh hearing with proper issue framing and full opportunity for both parties to present evidence. Outcome: Case remanded for retrial within 6 months with defendants to bear appeal costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
19-May-2026
Disposed
Principal District Judge
-
18-Apr-2026
Judgement
Principal District Judge
-
17-Apr-2026
For Arguement of Applicant
Principal District Judge
-
16-Apr-2026
For Arguement of Applicant
Principal District Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
For Arguement of Applicant
Principal District Judge
-
05-Mar-2026
For Arguement of Applicant
Principal District Judge
-
26-Feb-2026
For Arguement of Applicant
Principal District Judge
-
05-Feb-2026
For Arguement of Applicant
Principal District Judge
-
15-Jan-2026
For Arguement of Applicant
Principal District Judge
-
10-Dec-2025
For Arguement of opponent
Principal District Judge
-
12-Nov-2025
For Arguement of opponent
Principal District Judge
-
24-Sep-2025
For Arguement of opponent
Principal District Judge
-
13-Aug-2025
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
30-Jul-2025
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
26-Jun-2025
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
11-Jun-2025
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
23-May-2025
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
18-Apr-2025
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
28-Feb-2025
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
05-Feb-2025
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
22-Jan-2025
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
18-Dec-2024
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
13-Nov-2024
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
17-Oct-2024
Summons - Notice
Principal District Judge
-
10-Oct-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-Sep-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 45/2024
Summary: ALPA CONSTRUCTION CO. v. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT JUNAGADH (RCA 45/2024) Court Decision: The Principal District Judge, Junagadh quashed and set aside the trial court's judgment and decree dated 30.08.2024, remanding the case back to the trial court for fresh adjudication. Key Reasoning: The appellate court found that the trial court failed to frame a material issue arising from the defendants' specific pleading that they had never submitted any tender or executed any contract with the plaintiff. Although the trial court had permitted handwriting expert examination via order below Exhibit 247 (acknowledging the dispute's materiality), it later refused to discuss this critical issue in the judgment, citing lack of a formal application by defendants to recast issues. The court held this approach violated Order XIV of the CPC, 1908, which mandates courts to frame issues based on parties' pleadings regardless of formal applications. Since contract execution is fundamental to the plaintiff's claim for recovery of ₹6,29,140.72, the matter requires fresh hearing with proper issue framing and full opportunity for both parties to present evidence. Outcome: Case remanded for retrial within 6 months with defendants to bear appeal costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts