DGVCL vs AHMED SULEMAN KHANJI — 11/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2. Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 18th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJSR050000492026
Filing Number
11/2026
Filing Date
08-01-2026
Registration No
11/2026
Registration Date
08-01-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, MANGROL
Judge
3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
18th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DGVCL
Adv. J B GOHIL
Respondent(s)
AHMED SULEMAN KHANJI
Hearing History
Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
SUMMONS - NOTICE
SUMMONS - NOTICE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 08-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 13-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 23-02-2026 | SUMMONS - NOTICE |
| 05-02-2026 | SUMMONS - NOTICE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: RCS 11/2026 The court partially allowed DGVCL's suit for recovery of electricity dues against defendant Ahmed Suleman Khanji. The defendant was caught committing electricity theft by illegally connecting an extra wire to his legal connection, resulting in a bill of Rs. 52,104.17 plus delay charges totaling Rs. 57,422.78. The court decreed recovery of the full amount but rejected the plaintiff's claimed 16% interest as excessive and unreasonable. Instead, the court awarded 9% simple interest per annum from the suit filing date, considering prevailing bank rates and CPC Section 34 provisions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: RCS 11/2026 The court partially allowed DGVCL's suit for recovery of electricity dues against defendant Ahmed Suleman Khanji. The defendant was caught committing electricity theft by illegally connecting an extra wire to his legal connection, resulting in a bill of Rs. 52,104.17 plus delay charges totaling Rs. 57,422.78. The court decreed recovery of the full amount but rejected the plaintiff's claimed 16% interest as excessive and unreasonable. Instead, the court awarded 9% simple interest per annum from the suit filing date, considering prevailing bank rates and CPC Section 34 provisions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts