SAPNA DEVI AND ANOTHER vs SHEETAL AND OTHERS — RP /18/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1A. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 23rd April 2026.

CNR: JKHC020014152026

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

30th March 2026

Filing Number

RP /1037/2026

Filing Date

17-03-2026

Registration No

RP /18/2026

Registration Date

25-03-2026

Judge

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA , HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM

Coram

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA , HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

DB REVIEW PETITION RP ( 218 )

Sub-Category

IN SWP ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

SERVICE WRIT PETITION (SWP)

Decision Date

23rd April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 1A

Petitioner(s)

SAPNA DEVI AND ANOTHER

Adv. ABHIMANYU SHARMA

Respondent(s)

SHEETAL AND OTHERS

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA , HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM

30-03-2026

FOR ORDERS Before Notice

15-04-2026

FOR ORDERS Before Notice

01-04-2026

FOR ORDERS Before Notice

Orders

23-04-2026
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the review petition filed by Sapna Devi and Arshad Bano against a recruitment selection for Knitting Instructor positions, holding that the petitioners sought impermissible re-appreciation of evidence rather than correction of patent errors. The court found that the petitioners' qualifications did not match the prescribed requirements and that all substantive and legal arguments had been adequately addressed in the original judgment, making the review petition unmaintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the review petition filed by Sapna Devi and Arshad Bano against a recruitment selection for Knitting Instructor positions, holding that the petitioners sought impermissible re-appreciation of evidence rather than correction of patent errors. The court found that the petitioners' qualifications did not match the prescribed requirements and that all substantive and legal arguments had been adequately addressed in the original judgment, making the review petition unmaintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Code of Civil Procedure All acts →

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case