Dhyanpal vs Sangeeta Gupta — 62/2025

Case under Provincial Small Cause Courts Act Section 25. Disposed: Contested--DECIDED on 24th March 2026.

Civil Revision.

CNR: UPET010053052025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

393/2025

Filing Date

18-08-2025

Registration No

62/2025

Registration Date

18-08-2025

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District And Sessions Judge

Decision Date

24th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DECIDED

Acts & Sections

PROVINCIAL SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT Section 25

Petitioner(s)

Dhyanpal

Adv. Sanjay Varshney

Respondent(s)

Sangeeta Gupta

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District And Sessions Judge

24-03-2026

Disposed

20-03-2026

Arguments

10-03-2026

Arguments

26-02-2026

Arguments

24-02-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

24-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The District Judge of Agra dismissed the petitioner's revision petition challenging the lower court's July 9, 2024 order that rejected his application to set aside a one-sided decree in a 2018 property dispute (Civil Suit No. 2/2018). The court held that the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Act—specifically, he neither deposited the decretal amount in cash nor obtained prior court permission, submitting only a vehicle registration certificate as security, which was legally insufficient. The court upheld the lower court's order, finding no legal defect or excess of jurisdiction, and rejected the revision petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The District Judge of Agra dismissed the petitioner's revision petition challenging the lower court's July 9, 2024 order that rejected his application to set aside a one-sided decree in a 2018 property dispute (Civil Suit No. 2/2018). The court held that the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Act—specifically, he neither deposited the decretal amount in cash nor obtained prior court permission, submitting only a vehicle registration certificate as security, which was legally insufficient. The court upheld the lower court's order, finding no legal defect or excess of jurisdiction, and rejected the revision petition. 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 Session Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case