Rajapati Devi vs Ram Jatan — 152/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 115. Disposed: Contested--DECIDED on 17th March 2026.
Civil Revision.
CNR: UPAD010119112025
Filing Number
2461/2025
Filing Date
29-Oct-2025
Registration No
152/2025
Registration Date
11-Nov-2025
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
4-Additional District and Session Judge RNo. 1
Decision Date
17-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECIDED
Last updated 28-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Rajapati Devi
Respondent(s)
-
1.Ram Jatan
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Mar-2026
JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary: Rajapati Devi v. Ram Jatan (Civil Revision 152/2025) The court dismissed Rajapati Devi's revision petition challenging an order that rejected her application (Petition 77G) for a fresh court inspection of disputed property. The lower court had upheld a commissioner's report (Report 13G) already submitted with the petitioner's consent. The revision court found the lower court's order valid, noting that no objection to Report 13G was filed during trial and permitting fresh inspection would improperly delay a 33-year-old suit already in final arguments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Mar-2026
Disposed
Additional District and Session Judge RNo. 1
-
12-Mar-2026
Arguments
Additional District and Session Judge RNo. 1
-
27-Feb-2026
Arguments
Additional District and Session Judge RNo. 1
-
17-Feb-2026
Arguments
Additional District and Session Judge RNo. 1
-
04-Feb-2026
Arguments
Additional District and Session Judge RNo. 1
-
22-Jan-2026
Hearing
Additional District and Session Judge RNo. 1
-
22-Dec-2025
Hearing
Additional District and Session Judge RNo. 1
-
24-Nov-2025
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
11-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
29-Oct-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 152/2025
Case Summary: Rajapati Devi v. Ram Jatan (Civil Revision 152/2025) The court dismissed Rajapati Devi's revision petition challenging an order that rejected her application (Petition 77G) for a fresh court inspection of disputed property. The lower court had upheld a commissioner's report (Report 13G) already submitted with the petitioner's consent. The revision court found the lower court's order valid, noting that no objection to Report 13G was filed during trial and permitting fresh inspection would improperly delay a 33-year-old suit already in final arguments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts