PINKI vs PARVESH KUMAR — 82/2026
Case under Suit for Declaration Section 151. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 23rd May 2026.
MISC DJ - MISC. CASES FOR DJ ADJ
CNR: DLNE010004392026
e-Filing Number
07-02-2026
Filing Number
249/2026
Filing Date
09-02-2026
Registration No
82/2026
Registration Date
10-02-2026
Court
District and Sessions Judge, North-East, KKD
Judge
429-District Judge
Decision Date
23rd May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PINKI
Adv. Himanshu Detwal
Respondent(s)
PARVESH KUMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 429-District Judge
Disposed
Misc./ Arguments
Misc. cases
Misc. cases
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 15-04-2026 | Misc./ Arguments |
| 13-03-2026 | Misc. cases |
| 13-02-2026 | Misc. cases |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary In MISC DJ 82/2026, the court dismissed Parvesh Kumar's application seeking to set aside an ex-parte judgment and decree dated 07.08.2024 in a specific performance suit filed by Pinki. The court found that Kumar's claim of non-service was false, having established through documentary evidence (affidavits from prior litigation CS No. 90/2020) that he continuously resided at the same Delhi address from 2020-2025, contradicting his assertion of renting in Noida during 2020-2023. The court concluded Kumar deliberately avoided service and was aware of the litigation, making his application misconceived and dismissing it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary In MISC DJ 82/2026, the court dismissed Parvesh Kumar's application seeking to set aside an ex-parte judgment and decree dated 07.08.2024 in a specific performance suit filed by Pinki. The court found that Kumar's claim of non-service was false, having established through documentary evidence (affidavits from prior litigation CS No. 90/2020) that he continuously resided at the same Delhi address from 2020-2025, contradicting his assertion of renting in Noida during 2020-2023. The court concluded Kumar deliberately avoided service and was aware of the litigation, making his application misconceived and dismissing it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts