Shishpal Yadav vs Avinash Puri and Ors — 12/2026
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 24. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 30th March 2026.
T P (C) - TransferApplication
CNR: DLND010021042026
e-Filing Number
22-02-2026
Filing Number
1392/2026
Filing Date
24-02-2026
Registration No
12/2026
Registration Date
26-02-2026
Court
District and Sessions Judge,New Delhi, PHC
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shishpal Yadav
Adv. JAI WADHWA
Respondent(s)
Avinash Puri and Ors
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
Misc./ Appearance
Misc./ Appearance
Misc./ Appearance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-03-2026 | Misc./ Appearance |
| 13-03-2026 | Misc./ Appearance |
| 26-02-2026 | Misc./ Appearance |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Shishpal Yadav v. Avinash Puri and Ors. (TP(C) No. 12/2026) The court granted the petitioner's transfer petition under Section 24 CPC, allowing transfer of Civil Appeal RCA DJ/8/2026 from Ms. Meenu Kaushik (DJ-03) to Dr. Pankaj Sharma (DJ-02, Waqf Tribunal), both at Patiala House Court, New Delhi. The transfer was ordered because a connected appeal (CS SCJ.628/25) involving the same parties and arising from the same underlying order was already pending before Dr. Sharma's court, and consolidating both appeals before the same judge was deemed expedient and in the interest of justice. The respondent counsel offered no opposition to the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Shishpal Yadav v. Avinash Puri and Ors. (TP(C) No. 12/2026) The court granted the petitioner's transfer petition under Section 24 CPC, allowing transfer of Civil Appeal RCA DJ/8/2026 from Ms. Meenu Kaushik (DJ-03) to Dr. Pankaj Sharma (DJ-02, Waqf Tribunal), both at Patiala House Court, New Delhi. The transfer was ordered because a connected appeal (CS SCJ.628/25) involving the same parties and arising from the same underlying order was already pending before Dr. Sharma's court, and consolidating both appeals before the same judge was deemed expedient and in the interest of justice. The respondent counsel offered no opposition to the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts