RAJRSH MADHUWAL S/O PREMCHAND vs SUMITRA DEVI W/O PYARE LAL — 19/2026
Case under Rent Recovery Act Section 25. Disposed: Contested--DECIDED on 22nd May 2026.
Civil Revision
CNR: UPSP010011572026
Filing Number
130/2026
Filing Date
05-02-2026
Registration No
19/2026
Registration Date
05-02-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
5-Additional District Judge, C.R. No.1
Decision Date
22nd May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECIDED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAJRSH MADHUWAL S/O PREMCHAND
Adv. ANIL KUMAR VERMA
Respondent(s)
SUMITRA DEVI W/O PYARE LAL
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Additional District Judge, C.R. No.1
Disposed
For Order
hearing
hearing
hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 14-05-2026 | For Order |
| 07-05-2026 | hearing |
| 28-04-2026 | hearing |
| 20-04-2026 | hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 19/2026 Court Decision: The revisional court dismissed Rajesh Madhuwal's revision petition, upholding the lower court's order dated 29.01.2026. The court rejected Madhuwal's application seeking amendment of the judgment and decree in Civil Suit 78/2025 (Sumitra Devi vs. Rajesh Madhuwal), where the property address had been incorrectly recorded as shop number 12/1525 instead of the correct 12/525, finding the amendment application procedurally infirm and lacking merit since the defendant had deliberately failed to correct this error despite having full knowledge and opportunity to do so during the nearly four-year litigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 19/2026 Court Decision: The revisional court dismissed Rajesh Madhuwal's revision petition, upholding the lower court's order dated 29.01.2026. The court rejected Madhuwal's application seeking amendment of the judgment and decree in Civil Suit 78/2025 (Sumitra Devi vs. Rajesh Madhuwal), where the property address had been incorrectly recorded as shop number 12/1525 instead of the correct 12/525, finding the amendment application procedurally infirm and lacking merit since the defendant had deliberately failed to correct this error despite having full knowledge and opportunity to do so during the nearly four-year litigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts