ROSHAN LAL(Not Applicable) vs MAHANAT RAM(Not Applicable) — CMP/28828/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O 5 R 20. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 19th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010715482025

Filing Number

CMP/60587/2025

Filing Date

19-Nov-2025

Registration No

CMP/28828/2025

Registration Date

27-Nov-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

19-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 21-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O 5 R 20

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ROSHAN LAL(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Jyotika Gupta

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MAHANAT RAM(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF

    Case Summary: Roshan Lal v. Mahant Ram (CMP 28828/2025) The court dismissed Roshan Lal's application seeking service of summons by affixation on four proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent Mahant Ram. The court found that affixation service was impermissible because the respondents were not residing at the address where affixation was proposed—one was in Canada and three in Chandigarh—making actual notice unlikely and violating procedural law established in *Barkat Ullah v. Fazal-I-Maula*. The court held that service in a separate suit at the same address could not validate the proposed method, as no evidence showed their current availability there. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Jun-2026

    Pronouncement Of Order

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla

  4. 19-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CMP/28828/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Roshan Lal v. Mahant Ram (CMP 28828/2025) The court dismissed Roshan Lal's application seeking service of summons by affixation on four proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent Mahant Ram. The court found that affixation service was impermissible because the respondents were not residing at the address where affixation was proposed—one was in Canada and three in Chandigarh—making actual notice unlikely and violating procedural law established in *Barkat Ullah v. Fazal-I-Maula*. The court held that service in a separate suit at the same address could not validate the proposed method, as no evidence showed their current availability there. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case