KANCHANBEN NAGJIBHAI MARU vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - V N MADHAK — 56/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 33. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 12th March 2026.
MACMA - MAC MISC. APPLICATION
CNR: GJJN200004902025
Filing Number
56/2025
Filing Date
17-Nov-2025
Registration No
56/2025
Registration Date
17-Nov-2025
Court
Additional Court, Visavadar
Judge
1-4th Addl District Judge
Decision Date
12-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 15-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.KANCHANBEN NAGJIBHAI MARU
Adv. D N CHAUHAN
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - V N MADHAK
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Mar-2026
Judegement
Case Summary The 4th Additional District Judge, Visavadar, allowed Kanchanben Nagjibhai Maru's application to sue as an indigent person in a motor accident claim petition seeking Rs. 5,00,000 compensation for fracture injuries. The court found the applicant, a laborer with only Rs. 800 in movable property and no immovable property, lacked sufficient means to pay court fees, and the opposing state failed to provide contrary evidence to challenge this claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Mar-2026
Disposed
4th Addl District Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Judgement
4th Addl District Judge
-
09-Mar-2026
Notice To Opponents
4th Addl District Judge
-
06-Mar-2026
Notice To Opponents
4th Addl District Judge
-
23-Jan-2026
Notice To Opponents
4th Addl District Judge
-
26-Dec-2025
Notice To Opponents
4th Addl District Judge
-
11-Dec-2025
Notice To Opponents
4th Addl District Judge
-
17-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 56/2025
Case Summary The 4th Additional District Judge, Visavadar, allowed Kanchanben Nagjibhai Maru's application to sue as an indigent person in a motor accident claim petition seeking Rs. 5,00,000 compensation for fracture injuries. The court found the applicant, a laborer with only Rs. 800 in movable property and no immovable property, lacked sufficient means to pay court fees, and the opposing state failed to provide contrary evidence to challenge this claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts