PARVEEN KUMARI AND ANR vs SHASHI KUMAR AND ORS. — RA-CR/34/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010416462026

Filing Number

RA-CR/14202/2026

Filing Date

10-Mar-2026

Registration No

RA-CR/34/2026

Registration Date

12-Mar-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta

Coram

Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

26 - RSA ( 496 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PARVEEN KUMARI AND ANR

    Adv. SANDEEP KUMAR BOKOLIA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHASHI KUMAR AND ORS.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Ms. Justice Nidhi GuptaView PDF

    Case Summary: RA-CR/34/2026 Court Decision (24.03.2026): Justice Nidhi Gupta dismissed Parveen Kumari's review application seeking to recall the February 13, 2026 order. The court found the petitioners' conduct in their motor accident compensation appeal showed "utterly casual and careless attitude," with repeated unexplained absences and failure to prosecute since 2017. The court rejected arguments that the counsel's failure to note the case in the diary constituted sufficient cause for review, holding that review jurisdiction exists only to prevent miscarriage of justice or correct grave errors—neither present here. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. RA-CR/34/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RA-CR/34/2026 Court Decision (24.03.2026): Justice Nidhi Gupta dismissed Parveen Kumari's review application seeking to recall the February 13, 2026 order. The court found the petitioners' conduct in their motor accident compensation appeal showed "utterly casual and careless attitude," with repeated unexplained absences and failure to prosecute since 2017. The court rejected arguments that the counsel's failure to note the case in the diary constituted sufficient cause for review, holding that review jurisdiction exists only to prevent miscarriage of justice or correct grave errors—neither present here. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case