PGVCL GANDHIDHAM SUB DIVISION vs SHANKER VISHA BHANGI — 88/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 151. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF on 01st April 2026.
EXE R - EXECUTION PETITION - REGULAR
CNR: GJKT110115482025
Filing Number
88/2025
Filing Date
18-Dec-2025
Registration No
88/2025
Registration Date
18-Dec-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, GANDHIDHAM
Judge
33-4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
01-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED OF
Last updated 21-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.PGVCL GANDHIDHAM SUB DIVISION
Adv. T H MEHTA
Respondent(s)
-
1.SHANKER VISHA BHANGI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
01-Apr-2026
OrderView PDF
The 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhidham dismissed the execution petition filed by PGVCL against judgment debtor Shankar Visa Bhangi for want of a correct address. The court found that despite two adjournments and ample opportunities, the decree holder failed to provide an updated address after the original notice returned unserved, making execution impossible. The court invoked Supreme Court directives emphasizing timely decree execution and declined further adjournments given the five-month delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
01-Apr-2026
Disposed
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
18-Mar-2026
Show-Cause Notice To Judgement Debtor
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
11-Mar-2026
Show-Cause Notice To Judgement Debtor
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
11-Feb-2026
Show-Cause Notice To Judgement Debtor
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
03-Feb-2026
Show-Cause Notice To Judgement Debtor
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
31-Jan-2026
Show-Cause Notice To Judgement Debtor
4th Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
21-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 88/2025
The 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhidham dismissed the execution petition filed by PGVCL against judgment debtor Shankar Visa Bhangi for want of a correct address. The court found that despite two adjournments and ample opportunities, the decree holder failed to provide an updated address after the original notice returned unserved, making execution impossible. The court invoked Supreme Court directives emphasizing timely decree execution and declined further adjournments given the five-month delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts