DIRECTORS OF NIRMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPNY LIMITED. ENGINEER SHREE RASIKCHANDRA MAGANLAL PATEL Advocate - V G AJMERA — 8/2024

Case under Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

CMA SC - CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION - SR/CIVIL/SMALL CAUSE COU

CNR: GJSR120018912024

Filing Number

8/2024

Filing Date

20-Apr-2024

Registration No

8/2024

Registration Date

20-Apr-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, KATHOR

Judge

3-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 31-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DIRECTORS OF NIRMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED

    Adv. S R KINKHABWALA

  2. 2.DHARMESHKUMAR S/O PURUSHOTTAMBHAI NARANBHAI UKANI

  3. 3.PORSOTTAMBHAI S/O NARANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI UKANI

  4. 4.JOGNABEN D/O B.BHANDERI AND W/O BHARAT P.BHANDERI

  5. 5.VISHYABEN D.UKARI AND W/O DHARMESHKUMAR PARSOTTAMBHAI UKANI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPNY LIMITED. ENGINEER SHREE RASIKCHANDRA MAGANLAL PATEL Advocate - V G AJMERA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: CMA No. 08/2024 Court Decision: The court conditionally granted the petitioners' application to restore a civil suit (Spl. Civil Suit No. 248/2017) that had been decided ex-parte against them on 30.12.2022. The court found that the ex-parte judgment was passed in violation of natural justice principles due to the petitioners' lawyer's negligence in not representing them and failing to provide notice of the case transfer and final hearing dates. Key Reasoning: The court exercised its discretionary power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the 475-day delay in filing the restoration application, finding the explanation satisfactory. The petitioners' lack of knowledge about case proceedings, their lawyer's dereliction of duty, and the COVID-19 pandemic period during which courts were closed constituted sufficient cause for condonation. The court rejected the respondent's objections, noting that the petitioners were entitled to a fair hearing. Conditions: Petitioners must deposit ₹5,000 as costs within 10 days to proceed with the restored suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Order On Urgent Hearing

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    Order On Urgent Hearing

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 28-Feb-2026

    Order On Urgent Hearing

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  7. 23-Feb-2026

    Order On Urgent Hearing

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  8. 19-Feb-2026

    Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  9. 18-Feb-2026

    Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  10. 11-Feb-2026

    Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  11. 31-Jan-2026

    Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  12. 23-Jan-2026

    Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  13. 21-Jan-2026

    Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  14. 28-Nov-2025

    Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  15. 06-Sep-2025

    Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  16. 16-Jul-2025

    Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  17. 25-Apr-2025

    Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  18. 28-Feb-2025

    Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  19. 03-Jan-2025

    Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  20. 08-Nov-2024

    Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  21. 11-Sep-2024

    Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  22. 12-Jul-2024

    Reply

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  23. 09-May-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 20-Apr-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 8/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CMA No. 08/2024 Court Decision: The court conditionally granted the petitioners' application to restore a civil suit (Spl. Civil Suit No. 248/2017) that had been decided ex-parte against them on 30.12.2022. The court found that the ex-parte judgment was passed in violation of natural justice principles due to the petitioners' lawyer's negligence in not representing them and failing to provide notice of the case transfer and final hearing dates. Key Reasoning: The court exercised its discretionary power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the 475-day delay in filing the restoration application, finding the explanation satisfactory. The petitioners' lack of knowledge about case proceedings, their lawyer's dereliction of duty, and the COVID-19 pandemic period during which courts were closed constituted sufficient cause for condonation. The court rejected the respondent's objections, noting that the petitioners were entitled to a fair hearing. Conditions: Petitioners must deposit ₹5,000 as costs within 10 days to proceed with the restored suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case