(SH) NARINDER PAL SHARMA vs DINESH KUMAR — 102/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 24. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 17th March 2026.
T.P. Civ - Transfer Application
CNR: DLWT010133692025
e-Filing Number
16-12-2025
Filing Number
8861/2025
Filing Date
16-12-2025
Registration No
102/2025
Registration Date
17-12-2025
Court
District and Sessions Judge, West, THC
Judge
22-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
(SH) NARINDER PAL SHARMA
Adv. Vaibhav Kaushik
Respondent(s)
DINESH KUMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 22-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
Misc. cases/purpose
Misc. cases/purpose
Misc. cases/purpose
Misc. cases/purpose
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 14-03-2026 | Misc. cases/purpose |
| 12-03-2026 | Misc. cases/purpose |
| 11-02-2026 | Misc. cases/purpose |
| 19-01-2026 | Misc. cases/purpose |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Narinder Pal Sharma v. Dinesh Kumar (T.P. Civil 102/2025) The court dismissed petitioner Narinder Pal Sharma's transfer petition seeking to move his property dispute suit to another court on grounds of judicial bias. The court found that the judge's proceeding on the maintainability question, despite the petitioner's absence on the first hearing date, did not constitute bias—the judge merely gave the petitioner an opportunity to satisfy the court on maintainability without passing an adverse order. The court emphasized that bias allegations require substantiation by genuine and reasonable apprehensions, not mere speculation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Narinder Pal Sharma v. Dinesh Kumar (T.P. Civil 102/2025) The court dismissed petitioner Narinder Pal Sharma's transfer petition seeking to move his property dispute suit to another court on grounds of judicial bias. The court found that the judge's proceeding on the maintainability question, despite the petitioner's absence on the first hearing date, did not constitute bias—the judge merely gave the petitioner an opportunity to satisfy the court on maintainability without passing an adverse order. The court emphasized that bias allegations require substantiation by genuine and reasonable apprehensions, not mere speculation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts