THAKOR VINODSINH LAXMANSINH vs MODI SUBHADRABEN ARVINDBHAI Advocate - P R DESAI — 72/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 30th April 2026.

Case disposed

RCA - REGULAR CIVIL APPEAL

CNR: GJMH010022702023

Filing Number

72/2023

Filing Date

14-Jun-2023

Registration No

72/2023

Registration Date

14-Jun-2023

Court

DISTRICT COURT MAHESANA

Judge

4-2nd Addl District Judge

Decision Date

30-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 05-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 96

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THAKOR VINODSINH LAXMANSINH

    Adv. B M PRAJAPATI

  2. 2.THAKOR BHARTIBEN VINODSINH

    Adv. B M PRAJAPATI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MODI SUBHADRABEN ARVINDBHAI Advocate - P R DESAI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Judgment Summary The court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants (defendants in the original case). The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision that the respondent (plaintiff) is the rightful owner of the disputed property in Vijjapur and is entitled to recover possession from the appellants, who had unlawfully entered the property. The court found that the appellants failed to appear in proceedings or present any defense despite being properly served, constituting deliberate negligence, and therefore rejected their arguments challenging the original judgment as illegal or erroneous. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Addl District Judge

  4. 22-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    2nd Addl District Judge

  5. 18-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  6. 17-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  7. 10-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  8. 25-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  9. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  10. 18-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  11. 19-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  12. 24-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  13. 11-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  14. 20-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  15. 13-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  16. 13-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  17. 03-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  18. 14-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  19. 16-Jul-2025

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  20. 24-Jun-2025

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  21. 17-Apr-2025

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  22. 20-Mar-2025

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  23. 24-Feb-2025

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  24. 04-Feb-2025

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  25. 09-Jan-2025

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  26. 29-Nov-2024

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  27. 23-Oct-2024

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  28. 03-Sep-2024

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  29. 09-Aug-2024

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  30. 06-Aug-2024

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  31. 31-Jul-2024

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  32. 14-Jun-2024

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  33. 22-Apr-2024

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  34. 22-Mar-2024

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  35. 13-Feb-2024

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  36. 29-Dec-2023

    For R&P

    2nd Addl District Judge

  37. 06-Nov-2023

    For R&P

    3rd Addl District Judge

  38. 26-Sep-2023

    For R&P

    3rd Addl District Judge

  39. 20-Sep-2023

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  40. 18-Aug-2023

    Evidence Of Appellant

    3rd Addl District Judge

  41. 15-Jul-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  42. 14-Jun-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 72/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Judgment Summary The court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants (defendants in the original case). The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision that the respondent (plaintiff) is the rightful owner of the disputed property in Vijjapur and is entitled to recover possession from the appellants, who had unlawfully entered the property. The court found that the appellants failed to appear in proceedings or present any defense despite being properly served, constituting deliberate negligence, and therefore rejected their arguments challenging the original judgment as illegal or erroneous. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case