SUKUL RAM SAHU vs KUMARI KALYANI SAHU Advocate - Roop Ram Naik, ,MANJU NAIK,ABHISHEK SHARMA,Raj Kumar Sahu — WP227/494/2022
Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 08th May 2026.
CNR: CGHC010255812022
Filing Number
WP227/13879/2022
Filing Date
03-Aug-2022
Registration No
WP227/494/2022
Registration Date
04-Aug-2022
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
FAMILY LAW MATTERS ( 15 )
Sub-Category
ADOPTION & MAINTENANCE MATTERS. ( 1505 )
Judicial Branch
Writ Section
Decision Date
08-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 06-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SUKUL RAM SAHU
Adv. RATNESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,Prabha Sharma,Prabha Sharma, ,Prabha Sharma
Respondent(s)
-
1.KUMARI KALYANI SAHU Advocate - Roop Ram Naik, ,MANJU NAIK,ABHISHEK SHARMA,Raj Kumar Sahu
-
2.Chhattisgarh Power Generation Company Limited
Adv. Nirnay Gupta,SOUMITRA KESHARWANI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF
The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the writ petition as infructuous after both parties' counsel jointly informed the court that the underlying trial before the lower court had concluded. Since the substantive dispute had already been resolved through trial, no live issue remained for the writ court to adjudicate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Jul-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyView PDF
-
22-Sep-2022
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyView PDF
-
19-Sep-2022
Motion Hearing Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
-
12-Aug-2022
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyView PDF
-
12-Aug-2022
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
-
05-Aug-2022
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF
-
05-Aug-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
03-Aug-2022
Case filed
Registration No. WP227/494/2022
The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the writ petition as infructuous after both parties' counsel jointly informed the court that the underlying trial before the lower court had concluded. Since the substantive dispute had already been resolved through trial, no live issue remained for the writ court to adjudicate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts