Jayvantbhai Prabhakarbhai Kamdar vs Laljibhai Mohanbhai Kapadiya Advocate - M M SAMA, S R DODIYA — 34/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 34. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 30th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJJN110006102023
Filing Number
34/2023
Filing Date
21-09-2023
Registration No
34/2023
Registration Date
21-09-2023
Court
TALUKA COURT, BHESAN
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
30th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jayvantbhai Prabhakarbhai Kamdar
Adv. V V RANVA
Respondent(s)
Laljibhai Mohanbhai Kapadiya Advocate - M M SAMA, S R DODIYA
Kevalbhai Jinabhai Rabari
Adv. M M SAMA,S R DODIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 24-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 17-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 12-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 34/2023 The Principal Civil Court of Bhesan dismissed the petitioner Jayvantbhai Prabhakarbhai Kamdar's case due to his prolonged and unexplained absence from court proceedings and failure to advance the matter despite multiple opportunities. The court found that the petitioner remained absent for extended periods, did not submit any evidence or arguments in support of his case, and his counsel abandoned the case mid-proceedings. Under the Civil Procedure Code Rule 9, Regulation 3, the court closed the case in the interest of justice, citing the petitioner's lack of genuine interest in pursuing the litigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 34/2023 The Principal Civil Court of Bhesan dismissed the petitioner Jayvantbhai Prabhakarbhai Kamdar's case due to his prolonged and unexplained absence from court proceedings and failure to advance the matter despite multiple opportunities. The court found that the petitioner remained absent for extended periods, did not submit any evidence or arguments in support of his case, and his counsel abandoned the case mid-proceedings. Under the Civil Procedure Code Rule 9, Regulation 3, the court closed the case in the interest of justice, citing the petitioner's lack of genuine interest in pursuing the litigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts