(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

Case disposed

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

Code of Civil Procedure Section 24

Petitioner(s)

(SH) NARINDER PAL SHARMA

Adv. Vaibhav Kaushik

Respondent(s)

DINESH KUMAR

Hearing History

Judge: 22-Principal District and Sessions Judge

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

17-03-2026
COPY OF ORDER

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

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District and Sessions Judge, West, THC All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case