Yogendra Kumar(Legal Heir) vs Rajkumar Alias Raja — 31/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section NA. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 25th March 2026.
Civil Revision
CNR: UPKJ010032802025
Filing Number
216/2025
Filing Date
01-08-2025
Registration No
31/2025
Registration Date
01-08-2025
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
1-District & Session Judge
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Yogendra Kumar(Legal Heir)
Adv. Rajiv Kumar Saxena1.
Arun Kumar 1.
Omkumar 1.
Sharmila Sahu
Rajkumar(Legal Heir) 2.
Sheela Rathore(Legal Heir) 2.
Abhishek Kumar 2.
Amit Kumar 2.
Ashish Kumar 2.
Abhay Kumar
Reetu Sahu
Respondent(s)
Rajkumar Alias Raja
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District & Session Judge
For final arguments
Disposed
For final arguments
For final arguments
For final arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | For final arguments |
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | For final arguments |
| 10-03-2026 | For final arguments |
| 26-02-2026 | For final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The District Judge of Kannauj dismissed the civil revision petition filed by Yogendra Kumar's heirs challenging the trial court's order rejecting their application for a survey commission to determine the exact plot number of disputed land. The court held that appointing a commission is discretionary and found a previous commission report (dated 07.07.2023) conclusive, which determined that on-site measurement was impossible due to constructions and lack of fixed reference points; therefore, repeated requests for the same survey lacked justification and appeared to be an attempt to unnecessarily delay proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The District Judge of Kannauj dismissed the civil revision petition filed by Yogendra Kumar's heirs challenging the trial court's order rejecting their application for a survey commission to determine the exact plot number of disputed land. The court held that appointing a commission is discretionary and found a previous commission report (dated 07.07.2023) conclusive, which determined that on-site measurement was impossible due to constructions and lack of fixed reference points; therefore, repeated requests for the same survey lacked justification and appeared to be an attempt to unnecessarily delay proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts