SAIMA PARVEEN vs REKHA BURMAN — 448/2025
Case under Recovery of Money Section 74. Disposed: Uncontested--REJECTED on 30th March 2026.
CS - CIVIL SUIT FOR DJ ADJ
CNR: DLET010039722025
e-Filing Number
07-08-2025
Filing Number
2119/2025
Filing Date
07-08-2025
Registration No
448/2025
Registration Date
07-08-2025
Court
District and Sessions Judge, East, KKD
Judge
49-District Judge
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SAIMA PARVEEN
Adv. Subhash Chandra Lochakia
Respondent(s)
REKHA BURMAN
Hearing History
Judge: 49-District Judge
Disposed
Misc. Arguments
Misc. Arguments
Misc. Arguments
Misc. Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-03-2026 | Misc. Arguments |
| 13-03-2026 | Misc. Arguments |
| 06-02-2026 | Misc. Arguments |
| 22-12-2025 | Misc. Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Saima Parveen v. Rekha Burman (CS 448/2025) The court rejected plaintiff Saima Parveen's suit for specific performance of a property sale agreement, finding it barred by limitation. Although the original agreement (January 2020, completion by July 2020) fell within the COVID-extended limitation period ending February 28, 2025, the plaintiff's claim of a fresh limitation period starting March 16, 2025 (based on alleged January 30, 2025 payment and March 15, 2025 extended deadline) failed because neither the payment nor the deadline extension were documented in writing as required by Sections 18-19 of the Limitation Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Saima Parveen v. Rekha Burman (CS 448/2025) The court rejected plaintiff Saima Parveen's suit for specific performance of a property sale agreement, finding it barred by limitation. Although the original agreement (January 2020, completion by July 2020) fell within the COVID-extended limitation period ending February 28, 2025, the plaintiff's claim of a fresh limitation period starting March 16, 2025 (based on alleged January 30, 2025 payment and March 15, 2025 extended deadline) failed because neither the payment nor the deadline extension were documented in writing as required by Sections 18-19 of the Limitation Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts