KAILASH KUMAR SAHU vs SMT. DOLLY SAHU — WP227/638/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 04th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010217492026

Filing Number

WP227/12507/2026

Filing Date

01-Jun-2026

Registration No

WP227/638/2026

Registration Date

03-Jun-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL MATTERS ( 17 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS AND MIXED BAG ONES.. ( 1750 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

04-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KAILASH KUMAR SAHU

    Adv. SANJEEV KUMAR SAHU,ANIL KUMAR SAHU,ANIL KUMAR SAHU, ,RAJENDRA KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SMT. DOLLY SAHU

  2. 2.Minor Anshika Sahu

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore PrasadView PDF

    Case Summary: WP227/638/2026 The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the petition challenging the Family Court's rejection of Kailash Kumar Sahu's application to introduce video and voice recordings as evidence. The Court upheld the Family Court's decision, finding no jurisdictional error since the petitioner had knowledge of the documents since November 2023 but failed to produce them with his written statement or at the appropriate procedural stage. The Court noted that while discretion exists to permit late production under Order 8 Rule 1-A CPC, good cause must be shown, and the petitioner's delay—particularly after the respondent-wife's evidence concluded—did not warrant interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-Jun-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

  4. 01-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP227/638/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP227/638/2026 The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the petition challenging the Family Court's rejection of Kailash Kumar Sahu's application to introduce video and voice recordings as evidence. The Court upheld the Family Court's decision, finding no jurisdictional error since the petitioner had knowledge of the documents since November 2023 but failed to produce them with his written statement or at the appropriate procedural stage. The Court noted that while discretion exists to permit late production under Order 8 Rule 1-A CPC, good cause must be shown, and the petitioner's delay—particularly after the respondent-wife's evidence concluded—did not warrant interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case