AJAY SINGH RATHI vs KAMLA DEVI — CLR/39/2026

Case under Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (Act No. 9 of 1887) Section 25. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 24th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010052782026

Filing Number

CLR/2807/2026

Filing Date

06-Apr-2026

Registration No

CLR/39/2026

Registration Date

06-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

REVISIONS ( 4 )

Sub-Category

UNDER SECTION 25 PROVISO OF PROVINCIAL SMALL CAUSE COURT ACT,1887 ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Decision Date

24-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 17-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (Act No. 9 of 1887) Section 25

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AJAY SINGH RATHI

    Adv. RAJENDRA SINGH AZAD,DEVESH SAINI,DEVESH SAINI, ,NAGESH AGGARWAL,DEVESH SAINI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KAMLA DEVI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash UpadhyayView PDF

    The court dismissed the revision petition as infructuous since the underlying SCC Suit No.20/2024 had already been finally decided on 15.04.2026, rendering the challenge to the intermediate order striking off the defendant's defence moot. The defendant was permitted to raise objections regarding the rejection of application no.31C in any future proceedings against the final suit order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Apr-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay

  4. 10-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash UpadhyayView PDF

  5. 10-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 06-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CLR/39/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed the revision petition as infructuous since the underlying SCC Suit No.20/2024 had already been finally decided on 15.04.2026, rendering the challenge to the intermediate order striking off the defendant's defence moot. The defendant was permitted to raise objections regarding the rejection of application no.31C in any future proceedings against the final suit order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case