DINESHBHAI GULAJIBHAI SOLANKI vs BHAYLALBHAI MANILALBHAI TADVI Advocate - S.K.JOSHI — 95/2018
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 038,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJNR060001892018
Next Hearing
16th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
95/2018
Filing Date
30-12-2018
Registration No
95/2018
Registration Date
30-12-2018
Court
TALUKA COURT, GARUDESHWAR
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DINESHBHAI GULAJIBHAI SOLANKI
Adv. S D PARMAR
Respondent(s)
BHAYLALBHAI MANILALBHAI TADVI Advocate - S.K.JOSHI
RAKESHBHAI BHAYLALBHAI TADVI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 10-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 17-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 19-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 08-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Regular Civil Suit no.95/2018 was dismissed for default on 20/02/19 by the Principal Civil Judge, Garudeshwar. The plaintiff and his advocate failed to appear despite repeated court call-outs and multiple adjournments since 25/09/2017, even after the case was transferred to the court on 30/12/18 and a transfer notice was served on 13/02/19. The court found the plaintiff had lost interest in proceeding with the suit, while the defendants and their counsel remained present. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Regular Civil Suit no.95/2018 was dismissed for default on 20/02/19 by the Principal Civil Judge, Garudeshwar. The plaintiff and his advocate failed to appear despite repeated court call-outs and multiple adjournments since 25/09/2017, even after the case was transferred to the court on 30/12/18 and a transfer notice was served on 13/02/19. The court found the plaintiff had lost interest in proceeding with the suit, while the defendants and their counsel remained present. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts