Peer Gulam Naseer vs E.O. / Commissioner NagarParishad Advocate - MR MOHAMMED ARIF — 19/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O41. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing on 18th March 2026.
Civil Regular Appeal - CIVIL REG. APPEAL
CNR: RJSK160003062025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
185/2025
Filing Date
02-08-2025
Registration No
19/2025
Registration Date
15-09-2025
Court
ADJ FATEHPUR TALUKA HQ
Judge
1-ADJ
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Peer Gulam Naseer
Adv. MR DINESH SHARMA
Respondent(s)
E.O. / Commissioner NagarParishad Advocate - MR MOHAMMED ARIF
Chairman Nagar Parishad
J.En. Nagar Parishad
Manager
Adv. ANIL BATAR
DISTRICT COLLECTOR
TEHSILDAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADJ
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 17-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 16-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 13-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 12-03-2026 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Additional District Judge, Fatehpur dismissed the civil appeal filed by Peer Gulam Naseer against the Municipal Commissioner, finding that the trial court's judgment dated 30.06.2025 rejecting his suit was legally and factually sound under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC, as the original suit was not legally sustainable. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, rejecting the appellant's contentions regarding incomplete issues and improper discretion granted to recall a prior judgment, emphasizing that allowing the recall was merely a procedural option, not a substantive order requiring reversal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Additional District Judge, Fatehpur dismissed the civil appeal filed by Peer Gulam Naseer against the Municipal Commissioner, finding that the trial court's judgment dated 30.06.2025 rejecting his suit was legally and factually sound under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC, as the original suit was not legally sustainable. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, rejecting the appellant's contentions regarding incomplete issues and improper discretion granted to recall a prior judgment, emphasizing that allowing the recall was merely a procedural option, not a substantive order requiring reversal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts