UTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED NAYAB IJNER vs LATE DEVABHAI MEGHABHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIRS Advocate - F.M.SHAIKH — 6/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 28th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJPT070001762021
Next Hearing
28th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
6/2021
Filing Date
03-03-2021
Registration No
6/2021
Registration Date
03-03-2021
Court
TALUKA COURT, RADHANPUR
Judge
2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
UTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED NAYAB IJNER
Adv. M.H.MULANI
Respondent(s)
LATE DEVABHAI MEGHABHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIRS Advocate - F.M.SHAIKH
Hearing History
Judge: 2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 19-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 03-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 18-10-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 11-09-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Case Summary UGVCL v. Patel Ninaben & Others | Additional Civil Judge, Radhanpur | 28.08.2024 The court rejected the defendants' application for rejection of the plaint filed by Uttar Gujarat Vij. Company Ltd. seeking recovery of Rs. 1,09,968/- for unauthorized electricity usage. The defendants argued the suit was time-barred and barred by pending criminal proceedings, but the court held that civil recovery can proceed independently of ongoing criminal cases and the plaint is within limitation. The court found the plaint discloses a valid cause of action and procedural objections are trial issues, not grounds for rejection under CPC Order VII Rule 11. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary UGVCL v. Patel Ninaben & Others | Additional Civil Judge, Radhanpur | 28.08.2024 The court rejected the defendants' application for rejection of the plaint filed by Uttar Gujarat Vij. Company Ltd. seeking recovery of Rs. 1,09,968/- for unauthorized electricity usage. The defendants argued the suit was time-barred and barred by pending criminal proceedings, but the court held that civil recovery can proceed independently of ongoing criminal cases and the plaint is within limitation. The court found the plaint discloses a valid cause of action and procedural objections are trial issues, not grounds for rejection under CPC Order VII Rule 11. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts