Sangeeta Ors v. M/s Guru Kripa Prop. Ors. CMP(M) No
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Consequently, the application is allowed and
Judgment
Mr. Mukul, Advocate, vice Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, applicants/appellants. Advocate, Respondent No. 1 ex parte. Mr. Virender Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. No reply to the application is intended to be filed. Heard. Having regard to the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the applicant, this Court finds sufficient cause to condone the delay that has occurred in filing the present appeal. Consequently, the application is allowed and delay that has occurred in filing the present appeal, is condoned. The application stands disposed of . FAO (MV) No. /2026 Appeal be registered. Heard. Admit. Mr. Virender Sharma, Advocate, accepts service of post admission notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. Let post admission notice be issue to respondent No. 1 returnable within four weeks, on taking steps within two days. List thereafter. In the meantime, let records of learned Tribunal below be also called for. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 27th August, 2026 (raman)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Consequently, the application is allowed and
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 27 Aug 2026. The bench was SUSHIL KUKREJA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.