STATE BANK OF INDIA KHORASA THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER vs PUNJABHAI KANABHAI CHAVDA — 11/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 38. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 18th March 2026.
EXE R - EXECUTION PETITION - REGULAR
CNR: GJJN060006642025
Filing Number
11/2025
Filing Date
10-07-2025
Registration No
11/2025
Registration Date
10-07-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, MALIA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE BANK OF INDIA KHORASA THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER
Adv. M S GOHEL
Respondent(s)
PUNJABHAI KANABHAI CHAVDA
PALABHAI KANABHAI CHAVDA
KARSHANBHAI KANABHAI CHAVDA
KUVARBEN KANABHAI CHAVDA
PANCHIBEN KANABHAI CHAVDA
DEVAYBEN KANABHAI CHAVDA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT
WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT
WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT
WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT |
| 05-03-2026 | WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT |
| 18-02-2026 | WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT |
| 23-01-2026 | WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court dismissed State Bank of India's case for default against the respondents (Punjabhai, Palabhai, and Karshanbhai Kanabhai Chavda) due to the bank's failure to pursue the matter diligently. Despite multiple adjournments and extensions granted, the bank never provided information about the respondents' immovable property or obtained any decree for recovery of the claimed debt amount. The court found from the record that the bank had no genuine interest in continuing the proceedings and consequently ordered dismissal with costs imposed on the petitioner bank. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court dismissed State Bank of India's case for default against the respondents (Punjabhai, Palabhai, and Karshanbhai Kanabhai Chavda) due to the bank's failure to pursue the matter diligently. Despite multiple adjournments and extensions granted, the bank never provided information about the respondents' immovable property or obtained any decree for recovery of the claimed debt amount. The court found from the record that the bank had no genuine interest in continuing the proceedings and consequently ordered dismissal with costs imposed on the petitioner bank. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts