RANA PRATAP CHAND vs UDAY PRATAP CHAND — 45/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 24. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

Misc. Civil Cases

CNR: UPGK010011182026

Filing Number

100/2026

Filing Date

10-Feb-2026

Registration No

45/2026

Registration Date

10-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rejected

Last updated 24-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 24

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RANA PRATAP CHAND

    Adv. CHATURBHUJ SHUKLA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UDAY PRATAP CHAND

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The District Judge of Gorakhpur rejected the applicant Rana Pratap Chand's transfer petition filed under CPC Section 24, holding that the grounds cited—including the applicant's chronic illness (heart disease, diabetes, BP) and distance from the court—were insufficient and improper to warrant transferring the civil suit to another competent court in Gorakhpur. The court found that the case property is located within Baswgaon Tehsil, the hearing can proceed through video conferencing or advocate representation, and the applicant failed to provide contrary facts regarding the presiding officer's jurisdiction established by the High Court's 2017 order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Order/Disposal

    District and Sessions Judge

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  7. 21-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  8. 10-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 10-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 45/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The District Judge of Gorakhpur rejected the applicant Rana Pratap Chand's transfer petition filed under CPC Section 24, holding that the grounds cited—including the applicant's chronic illness (heart disease, diabetes, BP) and distance from the court—were insufficient and improper to warrant transferring the civil suit to another competent court in Gorakhpur. The court found that the case property is located within Baswgaon Tehsil, the hearing can proceed through video conferencing or advocate representation, and the applicant failed to provide contrary facts regarding the presiding officer's jurisdiction established by the High Court's 2017 order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case