CHHIDDA YADAV vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — 87/2025

Case under Civil Procedure Code 1908 Section 96. Disposed: Uncontested--ABATED on 05th June 2026.

Case disposed

RCA DJ - REG CIVIL APPEAL DJ and ADJ

CNR: DLET010064782025

e-Filing Number

03-12-2025

Filing Number

3383/2025

Filing Date

04-Dec-2025

Registration No

87/2025

Registration Date

04-Dec-2025

Court

District and Sessions Judge, East, KKD

Judge

49-District Judge

Decision Date

05-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ABATED

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code 1908 Section 96

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CHHIDDA YADAV

    Adv. akhlak ali

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-Jun-2026

    Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF

    The court abated the appeal filed by Chhidda Yadav against Delhi Development Authority after determining that the appellant had expired more than 90 days prior without the legal representatives being impleaded in the case. The District Judge found no grounds for further adjournment and ordered the trial court record returned with a copy of the abatement order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 24-Apr-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  5. 24-Apr-2026

    Misc. cases

    District Judge

  6. 14-Mar-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  7. 14-Mar-2026

    Misc. cases

    District Judge

  8. 02-Mar-2026

    Misc. cases

    District Judge

  9. 04-Feb-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  10. 04-Feb-2026

    Misc. cases

    District Judge

  11. 16-Jan-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  12. 16-Jan-2026

    Misc. cases

    District Judge

  13. 10-Dec-2025

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  14. 10-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  15. 04-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 87/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court abated the appeal filed by Chhidda Yadav against Delhi Development Authority after determining that the appellant had expired more than 90 days prior without the legal representatives being impleaded in the case. The District Judge found no grounds for further adjournment and ordered the trial court record returned with a copy of the abatement order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case