P.G.V.C.L.Dharangadhra vs MAYABHAI KHIMABHAI BHARVAD — 131/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 21,. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 10th March 2026.

EXE R - EXECUTION PETITION - REGULAR

CNR: GJSN080007362023

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

131/2023

Filing Date

12-04-2023

Registration No

131/2023

Registration Date

12-04-2023

Court

TALUKA COURT, DHRANGADHRA

Judge

16-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

10th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 21,

Petitioner(s)

P.G.V.C.L.Dharangadhra

Adv. H K VYAS

Respondent(s)

MAYABHAI KHIMABHAI BHARVAD

Hearing History

Judge: 16-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

10-03-2026

Disposed

06-03-2026

WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT

10-02-2026

WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT

19-01-2026

WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT

29-11-2025

WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT

Final Orders / Judgements

10-03-2026
ORDER

The court directed all High Courts across India to collect data on pending execution petitions from their respective district courts and issue administrative orders requiring disposal within six months from filing, with presiding officers held accountable to the High Court if deadlines are missed. This order reiterates the mandatory six-month timeline established in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, emphasizing that execution petitions cannot be delayed merely due to appellant absence or procedural excuses without valid legal justification. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court directed all High Courts across India to collect data on pending execution petitions from their respective district courts and issue administrative orders requiring disposal within six months from filing, with presiding officers held accountable to the High Court if deadlines are missed. This order reiterates the mandatory six-month timeline established in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, emphasizing that execution petitions cannot be delayed merely due to appellant absence or procedural excuses without valid legal justification. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, DHRANGADHRA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case