RAM KISHUN vs SULEKHA — 8/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 115. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 07th April 2026.
Civil Revision
CNR: UPHM010011292025
Filing Number
56/2025
Filing Date
18-Apr-2025
Registration No
8/2025
Registration Date
18-Apr-2025
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
1-District and Session Judge
Decision Date
07-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 17-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAM KISHUN
Adv. AJAY KUMAR PANDEY
Respondent(s)
-
1.SULEKHA
-
2.VATANLAL (DECEASED)
-
3.DHARMENDER
-
4.SUNNY
-
5.ARPIT
-
6.AKSHAY
-
7.MANOJ
-
8.VINOD KUMAR
-
9.SMT RAMKUMARI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-Apr-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
-
07-Apr-2026
Disposed
District and Session Judge
-
20-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
17-Feb-2026
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
31-Jan-2026
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
12-Jan-2026
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
16-Dec-2025
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
09-Dec-2025
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
24-Nov-2025
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
24-Oct-2025
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
29-Sep-2025
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
12-Sep-2025
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
29-Aug-2025
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
04-Aug-2025
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
05-Jul-2025
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
21-May-2025
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
08-May-2025
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
18-Apr-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-Apr-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 8/2025
Summary The District Judge of Hamirpur dismissed the civil revision petition filed by Ram Kishun against the trial court's order dated 24.03.2025. The trial court had accepted Sulekha's application (under CPC Order 9 Rule 7) to recall the ex-parte order passed against her, granting her relief with costs of Rs. 500, on grounds that she had suffered personal hardship (death of husband and illness of son) preventing her court appearance. The appellate court upheld this decision, holding that the trial court correctly applied the law by hearing both parties and deciding on merits, as the amended Section 115(3) CPC requires that essential parties be heard to prevent failure of justice, regardless of mere delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts