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
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
Petitioner(s)
Dhyanpal
Adv. Sanjay Varshney
Respondent(s)
Sangeeta Gupta
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District And Sessions Judge
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 20-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 26-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 24-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts