KALYAN SINGH(Not Applicable) vs THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER HP WAQF BOARD AND ANR(Not Applicable) Advocate - Ajay Kumar Sharma, ,Ajay Kumar Sharma — RFA/82/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Next hearing: 07th July 2026.

Next hearing 07-Jul-2026

CNR: HPHC010567332025

Filing Number

RFA/48003/2025

Filing Date

10-Sep-2025

Registration No

RFA/82/2026

Registration Date

17-Jun-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Last updated 21-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 96

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KALYAN SINGH(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Sunny Modgil

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER HP WAQF BOARD AND ANR(Not Applicable) Advocate - Ajay Kumar Sharma, ,Ajay Kumar Sharma

  2. 2.THE STATE OFFICER-CUM-TEHSILDAR(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Ajay Kumar Sharma

Case History

  1. 07-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 07-Jul-2026

    Notice Before Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja

  3. 19-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil KukrejaView PDF

    Case Summary: RFA No. 82/2026 In this Regular First Appeal, the respondent (HP Waqf Board) challenged the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that disputes relating to Waqfs must be resolved through revision petitions under Section 83(9) of the relevant Act, not regular appeals. The court upheld this contention based on binding precedent. The case was adjourned for two weeks to allow the appellant to obtain further instructions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 19-Jun-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 10-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. RFA/82/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RFA No. 82/2026 In this Regular First Appeal, the respondent (HP Waqf Board) challenged the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that disputes relating to Waqfs must be resolved through revision petitions under Section 83(9) of the relevant Act, not regular appeals. The court upheld this contention based on binding precedent. The case was adjourned for two weeks to allow the appellant to obtain further instructions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case