KANISHKA SABHARWAL PUSHPENDU SHUKLA vs SHRI SURESH KUMAR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS& ORS. — RFA/977/2025

Disposed: -- on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 27-Oct-2025

CNR: DLHC010824262025

Filing Number

RFA/7082338/2025

Filing Date

16-Oct-2025

Registration No

RFA/977/2025

Registration Date

25-Oct-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Coram

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Judicial Branch

APPELLATE SIDE

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KANISHKA SABHARWAL PUSHPENDU SHUKLA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHRI SURESH KUMAR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS& ORS.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    —View PDF

    Summary The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal challenging the trial court's rejection of his suit seeking declaration of ownership and recovery of possession of a Delhi property. The court upheld the dismissal on the ground of limitation, finding that the plaintiff became aware of the disputed sale in October 2008 but filed the suit only in 2019—well beyond the three-year limitation period under the Limitation Act. The court noted that serving a legal notice in 2019 could not revive a cause of action that had already expired by 2011. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta,hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal KrishnaView PDF

  4. 07-Jan-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

  5. 10-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani,hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar OhriView PDF

  6. 27-Oct-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani,hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar OhriView PDF

  7. 16-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. RFA/977/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal challenging the trial court's rejection of his suit seeking declaration of ownership and recovery of possession of a Delhi property. The court upheld the dismissal on the ground of limitation, finding that the plaintiff became aware of the disputed sale in October 2008 but filed the suit only in 2019—well beyond the three-year limitation period under the Limitation Act. The court noted that serving a legal notice in 2019 could not revive a cause of action that had already expired by 2011. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case