MD SIRAJUDDIN AHMED vs SMT MAIKAN BARMAN — I.A.(Civil)/1758/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 152. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Of on 03rd June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: GAHC010105792026

e-Filing Number

26-05-2026

Filing Number

I.A.(Civil)/6033/2026

Filing Date

26-May-2026

Registration No

I.A.(Civil)/1758/2026

Registration Date

27-May-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

10301 - Interlocutory Application (Civil) ( 382 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

03-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Of

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 152

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MD SIRAJUDDIN AHMED

    Adv. MR. A C SARMA, ,MR G BHARADWAJ,MR B DEORI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SMT MAIKAN BARMAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Robin PhukanView PDF

    Summary of I.A.(Civil)/1758/2026 The Gauhati High Court allowed petitioner MD Sirajuddin Ahmed's application under Section 152 CPC to correct an inadvertent mistake in an earlier order dated 22.04.2026. The court ordered that the miscellaneous case number incorrectly cited as "Misc. (J) Case No. 11/2023" in paragraphs 2 & 3 of CRP(I/O) No. 120/2026 be corrected to read as "Misc. (J) Case No. 12/2025" for all purposes, with the respondent's counsel offering no objection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. I.A.(Civil)/1758/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of I.A.(Civil)/1758/2026 The Gauhati High Court allowed petitioner MD Sirajuddin Ahmed's application under Section 152 CPC to correct an inadvertent mistake in an earlier order dated 22.04.2026. The court ordered that the miscellaneous case number incorrectly cited as "Misc. (J) Case No. 11/2023" in paragraphs 2 & 3 of CRP(I/O) No. 120/2026 be corrected to read as "Misc. (J) Case No. 12/2025" for all purposes, with the respondent's counsel offering no objection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case