ST. PAUL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL vs HUDA AND ASSOCIATES — FA/82/2026

Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: CGHC010121462026

Filing Number

FA/6983/2026

Filing Date

23-Mar-2026

Registration No

FA/82/2026

Registration Date

10-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu , Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu , Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL MATTERS ( 17 )

Sub-Category

APPEAL FILED BY INDIGENT PERSON ( 1721 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Last updated 22-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ST. PAUL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL

    Adv. NEERAJ CHOUBEY,AVINASH K.MISHRA,AVINASH K.MISHRA, ,AVINASH K.MISHRA,AVINASH K.MISHRA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HUDA AND ASSOCIATES

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu,Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh RajputView PDF

    Summary: In FA No. 82 of 2026 (St. Paul Higher Secondary School vs. HUDA and Associates) at the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, the appellant's counsel withdrew Interlocutory Application No. 2/2026 (filed under Order 44 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC), which was dismissed as not pressed. The court granted two weeks' time to the appellant's counsel to file an appropriate application to cure the defects pointed out by the Registry. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal,Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh RajputView PDF

  4. 15-Apr-2026

    For Orders [On Office Notes]

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal , Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

  5. 23-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. FA/82/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In FA No. 82 of 2026 (St. Paul Higher Secondary School vs. HUDA and Associates) at the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, the appellant's counsel withdrew Interlocutory Application No. 2/2026 (filed under Order 44 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC), which was dismissed as not pressed. The court granted two weeks' time to the appellant's counsel to file an appropriate application to cure the defects pointed out by the Registry. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case