RAJESH SINGH BISHT vs VIKRAM SINGH LATWAL Advocate - SIDDHARTHA SINGH, DEVENDRA SINGH NEGI (FOR CAVEATOR) — SA/37/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908) Section 100. Next hearing: 10th July 2026.

CNR: UKHC010057342026

Next Hearing

10th July 2026

Filing Number

SA/3025/2026

Filing Date

09-04-2026

Registration No

SA/37/2026

Registration Date

09-04-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Sah

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Sah

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

APPEAL ( 3 )

Sub-Category

SECOND APPEAL ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908) Section 100

Petitioner(s)

RAJESH SINGH BISHT

Adv. NAVNISH NEGI

Respondent(s)

VIKRAM SINGH LATWAL Advocate - SIDDHARTHA SINGH, DEVENDRA SINGH NEGI (FOR CAVEATOR)

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Sah

16-04-2026

FRESH CASES AS DEFECTIVE -236

10-07-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

Orders

08-05-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Sah

Case Summary: SA/37/2026 Outcome: Second appeal admitted on substantial questions of law; case adjourned to 10.07.2026 with status quo maintained on property possession. Details: Rajesh Singh Bisht's second appeal challenges the First Appellate Court's reversal of the trial court's judgment that had allowed his counter-claim for possession recovery of property (Khasra No.506/1). The court admitted the appeal based on questions regarding admissibility of a 1998 agreement-to-sell under Registration Act provisions and its use in defending possession claims. Trial court record summoned; parties ordered to maintain possession status quo pending next hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: SA/37/2026 Outcome: Second appeal admitted on substantial questions of law; case adjourned to 10.07.2026 with status quo maintained on property possession. Details: Rajesh Singh Bisht's second appeal challenges the First Appellate Court's reversal of the trial court's judgment that had allowed his counter-claim for possession recovery of property (Khasra No.506/1). The court admitted the appeal based on questions regarding admissibility of a 1998 agreement-to-sell under Registration Act provisions and its use in defending possession claims. Trial court record summoned; parties ordered to maintain possession status quo pending next hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case