KAMLA DEVI(Not Applicable) vs APROOV DEVGAN(Not Applicable) — COPC/581/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 215. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 16th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010282252026

Filing Number

COPC/24572/2026

Filing Date

06-May-2026

Registration No

COPC/581/2026

Registration Date

12-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

16-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 215

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KAMLA DEVI(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Roop Lal Chaudhary

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.APROOV DEVGAN(Not Applicable)

    Adv. AG 1123

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil KukrejaView PDF

    COPC/581/2026 Summary: The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of Kamla Devi's contempt petition after the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sunderngar complied with the court's earlier directions by passing an order on 21.04.2026, conducting a detailed inquiry and deciding the petitioner's representation on merits. The court found no further orders necessary and closed the petition, while preserving the petitioner's right to challenge the SDO's order through appropriate legal remedies if aggrieved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Jun-2026

    Notice Before Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja

  4. 18-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil KukrejaView PDF

  5. 18-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 06-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. COPC/581/2026

casestatus.in Summary

COPC/581/2026 Summary: The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of Kamla Devi's contempt petition after the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sunderngar complied with the court's earlier directions by passing an order on 21.04.2026, conducting a detailed inquiry and deciding the petitioner's representation on merits. The court found no further orders necessary and closed the petition, while preserving the petitioner's right to challenge the SDO's order through appropriate legal remedies if aggrieved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case