Ram Swaroop vs Shankar Dayal — 35/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 24. Disposed: Contested--Decided on 07th April 2026.

Case disposed

Misc. Civil Cases

CNR: UPSI010012512026

Filing Number

78/2026

Filing Date

17-Feb-2026

Registration No

35/2026

Registration Date

17-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

07-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Decided

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 24

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Ram Swaroop

    Adv. Rajendra Prasad Verma

  2. 2.Tulsi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Shankar Dayal

  2. 2.Dhirendra Kumar

  3. 3.Dinesh Kumar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    The court rejected the petitioners' transfer application seeking to shift civil case 418/2016 from Civil Judge (JD) Biswan to Civil Judge (CD) Sitapur, finding the application lacked sufficient factual basis and proper grounds for transfer. The court determined that the petition relied on unsupported assertions and that the existence of another pending case was mentioned without proper details, making transfer unjustified under the given circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 02-Apr-2026

    Objection/Disposal

    District Judge

  5. 30-Mar-2026

    Objection/Disposal

    District Judge

  6. 26-Mar-2026

    Objection/Disposal

    District Judge

  7. 24-Mar-2026

    Objection/Disposal

    District Judge

  8. 18-Mar-2026

    Objection/Disposal

    District Judge

  9. 12-Mar-2026

    Objection/Disposal

    District Judge

  10. 17-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  11. 17-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 35/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the petitioners' transfer application seeking to shift civil case 418/2016 from Civil Judge (JD) Biswan to Civil Judge (CD) Sitapur, finding the application lacked sufficient factual basis and proper grounds for transfer. The court determined that the petition relied on unsupported assertions and that the existence of another pending case was mentioned without proper details, making transfer unjustified under the given circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case