ROHIT JASWAL(Not Applicable) vs DC KANGRA AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable) — RP/42/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O47R1. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010275782026

Filing Number

RP/24010/2026

Filing Date

05-May-2026

Registration No

RP/42/2026

Registration Date

07-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O47R1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ROHIT JASWAL(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Ajay Vaidya

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DC KANGRA AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable)

    Adv. AG 1123

  2. 2.Gurbachan Singh(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: RP 42/2026 – Rohit Jaswal v. DC Kangra The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed Rohit Jaswal's review petition challenging an April 23, 2026 order that directed the Divisional Commissioner Kangra to decide a pending appeal within two months. Jaswal claimed the prior order contained errors, specifically that respondent Gurbachan Singh falsely stated Jaswal was his son (asserting he was actually Gurcharan Singh's son), and that no notice was issued to him. The court held that these allegations did not constitute "patent error apparent on the face of the record" required under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, as the original order's core direction—expedited disposal motivated by the respondent's advanced age (83 years)—remained undisputed and unaffected by factual assertions about parentage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    Notice Before Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh

  4. 05-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. RP/42/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: RP 42/2026 – Rohit Jaswal v. DC Kangra The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed Rohit Jaswal's review petition challenging an April 23, 2026 order that directed the Divisional Commissioner Kangra to decide a pending appeal within two months. Jaswal claimed the prior order contained errors, specifically that respondent Gurbachan Singh falsely stated Jaswal was his son (asserting he was actually Gurcharan Singh's son), and that no notice was issued to him. The court held that these allegations did not constitute "patent error apparent on the face of the record" required under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, as the original order's core direction—expedited disposal motivated by the respondent's advanced age (83 years)—remained undisputed and unaffected by factual assertions about parentage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case