Ram Dev vs Ram Prahlad — 115/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 115. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

Civil Revision

CNR: UPGD010064932024

Filing Number

661/2024

Filing Date

25-Nov-2024

Registration No

115/2024

Registration Date

09-Dec-2024

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

2-Addl. District Judge- I

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGEMENT

Last updated 17-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 115

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Ram Dev

    Adv. Satish Kumar Pandey

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ram Prahlad

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Summary The High Court of Uttar Pradesh has dismissed the civil revision petition filed by Ram Dev and others against a trial court order dated September 5, 2024, in a land dispute case (Case No. 151/1970). The court held that the trial court's decision on issue no. 5 regarding whether the disputed agricultural land is barred by the Land Consolidation Act, 1953 (Section 5) was legally valid and properly reasoned, and found no illegality, impropriety, or violation of procedural law warranting interference. The court affirmed the original trial court judgment and dismissed the revision petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. District Judge- I

  4. 25-Feb-2026

    Order/Disposal

    Addl. District Judge- I

  5. 24-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge- I

  6. 23-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge- I

  7. 04-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge- I

  8. 03-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge- I

  9. 05-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge- I

  10. 15-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District Judge- I

  11. 28-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District Judge- I

  12. 11-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District Judge- I

  13. 30-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District Judge- I

  14. 09-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District Judge- I

  15. 19-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District Judge- I

  16. 10-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District Judge- I

  17. 30-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District Judge- I

  18. 12-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District Judge- I

  19. 28-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District Judge- I

  20. 19-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District Judge- I

  21. 14-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District Judge- I

  22. 09-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District Judge- I

  23. 03-Jul-2025

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge- I

  24. 31-May-2025

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge- I

  25. 29-May-2025

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge- I

  26. 20-May-2025

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge- I

  27. 05-May-2025

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge- I

  28. 24-Apr-2025

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge- I

  29. 10-Apr-2025

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge- I

  30. 02-Apr-2025

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge- I

  31. 24-Mar-2025

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge- I

  32. 19-Mar-2025

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge- I

  33. 12-Mar-2025

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge- I

  34. 10-Mar-2025

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge- I

  35. 05-Mar-2025

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge- I

  36. 25-Feb-2025

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge- I

  37. 25-Feb-2025

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge- I

  38. 20-Jan-2025

    Restored

    Addl. District Judge- I

  39. 20-Jan-2025

    Disposed

    Addl. District Judge- I

  40. 07-Jan-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  41. 25-Nov-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 115/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court of Uttar Pradesh has dismissed the civil revision petition filed by Ram Dev and others against a trial court order dated September 5, 2024, in a land dispute case (Case No. 151/1970). The court held that the trial court's decision on issue no. 5 regarding whether the disputed agricultural land is barred by the Land Consolidation Act, 1953 (Section 5) was legally valid and properly reasoned, and found no illegality, impropriety, or violation of procedural law warranting interference. The court affirmed the original trial court judgment and dismissed the revision petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case