FAZLA vs MOHAMMAD AHMAD Advocate - NIKHIL SINGHAL, ,H C PATHAK — WPMS/1621/2015
Case under Under Article 227 of the Constituion of India Section 227. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 06th May 2026.
CNR: UKHC010000242015
Filing Number
WPMS/1007489/2015
Filing Date
03-Jul-2015
Registration No
WPMS/1621/2015
Registration Date
03-Jul-2015
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Sah
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Sah
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
MISC WRIT PETITION ( 2 )
Sub-Category
AGAINST THE ORDER OF REVENUE COURT IN CONSOLIDATION ( 7 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Decision Date
06-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 06-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.FAZLA
Adv. Advocate- ,HIMANSHU PAL,TAPAN SINGH
Respondent(s)
-
1.MOHAMMAD AHMAD Advocate - NIKHIL SINGHAL, ,H C PATHAK
-
2.JAMEEL
-
3.SALEEM
-
4.JAHANGEER
-
5.MANSAB
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha SahView PDF
CASE SUMMARY: WPMS 1621/2015 The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed Fazla's petition challenging an order allowing an amendment to a pending consolidation revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation had permitted the addition of four new respondents (Jameel, Saleem, Jahangeer, and Mansab) to Revision 56/2013-2014. The court upheld this amendment as justified because: (1) the new parties were proper and necessary parties who would be affected by the revision's outcome; (2) the amendment complied with the High Court's 2013 directions requiring all affected parties to receive proper hearing in consolidation proceedings; and (3) no party would be prejudiced by their impleadment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-May-2026
Admission Matters -25
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Sah
-
28-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha SahView PDF
-
10-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh ThapliyalView PDF
-
10-Mar-2026
Admission Matters -25
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
-
03-Jan-2026
Admission Matters -25
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
-
20-Nov-2025
Admission Matters -25
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
-
10-Oct-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj PurohitView PDF
-
10-Oct-2025
Admission Matters -25
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
-
18-Sep-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj PurohitView PDF
-
18-Sep-2025
After Fresh Matters -128
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
-
02-Sep-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj PurohitView PDF
-
02-Sep-2025
Admission Matters -25
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
-
26-Aug-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj PurohitView PDF
-
26-Aug-2025
For Final Hearing -40
Daily Lok Adalat
-
26-Aug-2025
Revoked
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari
-
08-Aug-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish NaithaniView PDF
-
18-Aug-2023
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh ThapliyalView PDF
-
18-Jul-2023
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh ThapliyalView PDF
-
10-Jul-2023
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sharad Kumar SharmaView PDF
-
21-Mar-2023
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vipin SanghiView PDF
- 23-Nov-2022
- 03-Nov-2022
-
03-Nov-2022
Admission Matters -25
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari
-
31-Dec-2020
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sharad Kumar SharmaView PDF
-
24-Sep-2018
Admission Matters -25
-
09-Jun-2017
Admission Matters -25
-
23-Jun-2016
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Lok Pal SinghView PDF
-
23-Jun-2016
Admission Matters -25
-
04-Jan-2016
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Lok Pal SinghView PDF
-
04-Jan-2016
Admission Matters -25
-
18-Nov-2015
Admission Matters -25
-
08-Oct-2015
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Lok Pal SinghView PDF
-
08-Oct-2015
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
- 06-Jul-2015
-
03-Jul-2015
Case filed
Registration No. WPMS/1621/2015
CASE SUMMARY: WPMS 1621/2015 The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed Fazla's petition challenging an order allowing an amendment to a pending consolidation revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation had permitted the addition of four new respondents (Jameel, Saleem, Jahangeer, and Mansab) to Revision 56/2013-2014. The court upheld this amendment as justified because: (1) the new parties were proper and necessary parties who would be affected by the revision's outcome; (2) the amendment complied with the High Court's 2013 directions requiring all affected parties to receive proper hearing in consolidation proceedings; and (3) no party would be prejudiced by their impleadment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts