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

Case disposed

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

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2

Petitioner(s)

DGVCL

Adv. J B GOHIL

Respondent(s)

AHMED SULEMAN KHANJI

Hearing History

Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

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

18-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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

13-03-2026
ORDER
casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, MANGROL All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case