SHIVRAM vs DINESH KUMAR — 27/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 115. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 10th March 2026.
Civil Revision
CNR: UPEW010021192025
Filing Number
192/2025
Filing Date
22-Apr-2025
Registration No
27/2025
Registration Date
22-Apr-2025
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
1-District Judge Etawah
Decision Date
10-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Last updated 17-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHIVRAM
Adv. GYAN AGRAWAL
Respondent(s)
-
1.DINESH KUMAR
-
2.VINOD KUMAR
-
3.MUNNI DEVI
-
4.ABHISHEK KUMAR
-
5.RAJESH KUMAR
-
6.VIVEK KUMAR
-
7.ASHISH KUMAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Mar-2026
copy of JudgementView PDF
The District Judge of Etawah allowed the revision petition and set aside the lower court's dismissal of the execution petition. The court held that decree execution for specific performance depends on whether the new plot (gata no. 215) was allotted at the same location as the original plot (gata no. 83)—if at the same place, execution is possible; if at a different location, it is not. The matter was remanded to the executing court to take evidence and determine plot location before deciding executability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Judge Etawah
-
09-Mar-2026
Judgements
District Judge Etawah
-
18-Feb-2026
hearing
District Judge Etawah
-
09-Feb-2026
hearing
District Judge Etawah
-
09-Jan-2026
hearing
District Judge Etawah
-
09-Dec-2025
hearing
District Judge Etawah
-
15-Nov-2025
hearing
District Judge Etawah
-
17-Oct-2025
hearing
District Judge Etawah
-
29-Sep-2025
hearing
District Judge Etawah
-
10-Sep-2025
hearing
District Judge Etawah
-
18-Aug-2025
hearing
District Judge Etawah
-
29-Jul-2025
hearing
District Judge Etawah
-
15-Jul-2025
hearing
District Judge Etawah
-
21-May-2025
hearing
District Judge Etawah
-
22-Apr-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Apr-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 27/2025
The District Judge of Etawah allowed the revision petition and set aside the lower court's dismissal of the execution petition. The court held that decree execution for specific performance depends on whether the new plot (gata no. 215) was allotted at the same location as the original plot (gata no. 83)—if at the same place, execution is possible; if at a different location, it is not. The matter was remanded to the executing court to take evidence and determine plot location before deciding executability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts