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
Next Hearing
08th October 2015
Filing Number
WPMS/1007489/2015
Filing Date
03-07-2015
Registration No
WPMS/1621/2015
Registration Date
03-07-2015
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
06th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
FAZLA
Adv. Advocate- ,HIMANSHU PAL,TAPAN SINGH
Respondent(s)
MOHAMMAD AHMAD Advocate - NIKHIL SINGHAL, ,H C PATHAK
JAMEEL
SALEEM
JAHANGEER
MANSAB
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Sah
FOR FINAL HEARING -40
ADMISSION MATTERS -25
ADMISSION MATTERS -25
ADMISSION MATTERS -25
ADMISSION MATTERS -25
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-08-2025 | FOR FINAL HEARING -40 |
| 06-05-2026 | ADMISSION MATTERS -25 |
| 10-03-2026 | ADMISSION MATTERS -25 |
| 03-01-2026 | ADMISSION MATTERS -25 |
| 20-11-2025 | ADMISSION MATTERS -25 |
Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts