LALDHARI MISTRI(DEAD) THR. LRS. vs VIJAY KUMAR — C.A. No. 5780/2008

Case under Section XVI. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010019912006

Filing Date

19-Jan-2006

Registration No

C.A. No. 5780/2008

Diary Number

1991/2006

Order Date

13-Jul-2017

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Neutral Citation

2017 INSC 611

Disposal Type

Allowed

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section XVI

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.LALDHARI MISTRI(DEAD) THR. LRS.

    Adv. GAURAV AGRAWAL (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VIJAY KUMAR

    Adv. SAMIR ALI KHAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Jul-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 13-Jul-2017

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 13-Jul-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

  5. 12-Jul-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 16-Feb-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 06-Feb-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 15-Sep-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 18-Aug-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 21-Jul-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 24-Mar-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 11-Feb-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 28-Jan-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 07-Dec-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 24-Sep-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 02-Aug-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 19-Jan-2006

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 5780/2008

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C.A. No. 005780/2008 Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the ex-parte decree dated 09.06.1987, directing that Suit No. 14 of 1986 (a specific performance suit regarding a residential property in Munger, Bihar) be decided on merits. Status quo possession continues until final judgment. Key Facts & Reasoning: The Court found that respondent Vijay Kumar was a "doubtful entity" who never appeared in court despite multiple directives and was not present at the property during two separate commissioner visits—only the original tenant's daughter was found there. The Court concluded Kumar was likely put up by the tenant to obstruct the landlord's eviction decree obtained in 1992, and in the interest of justice, overturned three lower court dismissals. Next Steps: The trial court (Sub-Judge, Munger) must hear and dispose of the suit within one year from the judgment date (13 July 2017). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case