Veena Mishra Alias Veena vs The Estate of Baidnath Mishra — 141/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/p-IX, Rule 4. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

Miscellaneous - Miscellaneous Case

CNR: BRPA010226072025

Filing Number

3270/2025

Filing Date

20-Dec-2025

Registration No

141/2025

Registration Date

20-Dec-2025

Court

DJ Div. Patna Sadar

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section U/p-IX, Rule 4

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Veena Mishra Alias Veena

    Adv. Santosh Kumar Singh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Estate of Baidnath Mishra

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The court dismissed Veena Mishra's petition to restore her dismissed Probate Case No. 103 of 2018, finding she failed to provide sufficient cause for the 2153-day delay in filing. Although she attributed the delay to her advocate-clerk's death and her own health issues during COVID-19, the court found these explanations inadequate—particularly since she only learned of the dismissal in November 2025 and filed her requisition in December 2025, constituting further laches. The court emphasized that delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity when opposing parties face prejudice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 21-Feb-2026

    Order

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  5. 16-Feb-2026

    Hearing On Admission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  6. 27-Jan-2026

    Hearing On Admission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  7. 22-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 20-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 141/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed Veena Mishra's petition to restore her dismissed Probate Case No. 103 of 2018, finding she failed to provide sufficient cause for the 2153-day delay in filing. Although she attributed the delay to her advocate-clerk's death and her own health issues during COVID-19, the court found these explanations inadequate—particularly since she only learned of the dismissal in November 2025 and filed her requisition in December 2025, constituting further laches. The court emphasized that delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity when opposing parties face prejudice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case