P.G.V.C.L.Dharangadhra vs PIYUSHBHAI KARASANBHAI PATADIYA — 95/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 21,. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 06th March 2026.
EXE R - EXECUTION PETITION - REGULAR
CNR: GJSN080012192025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
95/2025
Filing Date
27-03-2025
Registration No
95/2025
Registration Date
27-03-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, DHRANGADHRA
Judge
17-2nd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
P.G.V.C.L.Dharangadhra
Adv. M B JHALA
Respondent(s)
PIYUSHBHAI KARASANBHAI PATADIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 17-2nd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR
SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR
SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR
SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 20-02-2026 | SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR | |
| 07-02-2026 | SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR | |
| 23-01-2026 | SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR | |
| 08-01-2026 | SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO JUDGEMENT DEBTOR |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court dismissed the execution petition filed by PGVCL Rural subdivision against Piyushbhai Karsanbhai Patadiya for recovery of Rs. 8,036.28 due to non-prosecution. Despite multiple court hearings and opportunities, the decree holder failed to take necessary steps to prosecute the petition, made no appearances, and offered no explanation for the delay, leading the court to conclude that keeping the petition pending would serve no useful purpose. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court dismissed the execution petition filed by PGVCL Rural subdivision against Piyushbhai Karsanbhai Patadiya for recovery of Rs. 8,036.28 due to non-prosecution. Despite multiple court hearings and opportunities, the decree holder failed to take necessary steps to prosecute the petition, made no appearances, and offered no explanation for the delay, leading the court to conclude that keeping the petition pending would serve no useful purpose. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts