VIRBAI AAIDAN GADHVI vs DALPATRAM KANJI JOSHI Advocate - D M JADEJA — 31/2009

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 31,34,39. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR WANT PROSECUTION on 08th May 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJKT070000312009

Case disposed

Filing Number

31/2009

Filing Date

28-01-2009

Registration No

31/2009

Registration Date

28-01-2009

Court

TALUKA COURT, NAKHATRANA

Judge

6-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

08th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR WANT PROSECUTION

Acts & Sections

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 Section 31,34,39

Petitioner(s)

VIRBAI AAIDAN GADHVI

Adv. J K CHINARANA

Respondent(s)

DALPATRAM KANJI JOSHI Advocate - D M JADEJA

VASTA BHARMAL GADHVI

Adv. J K CHINARANA

KIRTIKUMAR KHANJI GADHVI

JETHALAL VALJI NAKRANI

Adv. A R LIMBANI

Hearing History

Judge: 6-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

08-05-2026

Disposed

08-04-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

11-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

18-02-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

02-02-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Final Orders / Judgements

08-05-2026
ORDER
08-05-2026
ORDER
08-05-2026
ORDER

Case Summary Regular Civil Suit No. 31/2009 – Dismissal for Default The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking cancellation of a sale-deed and permanent injunction after the plaintiff repeatedly failed to appear for cross-examination despite the issues being framed in 2017 and affidavit of evidence filed in 2019. The Additional Civil Judge found the plaintiff negligent and disastrously defaulted in prosecution, dismissing the case for want of evidence under Order-17, Rule-02 read with Order-09 of the CPC, 1908. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

18-06-2015
Order Number 1
30-09-2016
ORDER
casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Regular Civil Suit No. 31/2009 – Dismissal for Default The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking cancellation of a sale-deed and permanent injunction after the plaintiff repeatedly failed to appear for cross-examination despite the issues being framed in 2017 and affidavit of evidence filed in 2019. The Additional Civil Judge found the plaintiff negligent and disastrously defaulted in prosecution, dismissing the case for want of evidence under Order-17, Rule-02 read with Order-09 of the CPC, 1908. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, NAKHATRANA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case