KANTHAMMA ETC. vs PYARI KUMARI ETC. — SLP(C) No. 6016 - 6018/2009

Case under Section IV-C. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010064812009

Filing Date

02-Mar-2009

Registration No

SLP(C) No. 6016 - 6018/2009

Diary Number

6481/2009

Order Date

20-Mar-2013

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 02-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section IV-C

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KANTHAMMA ETC.

    Adv. E. R. SUMATHY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PYARI KUMARI ETC.

    Adv. SARAD KUMAR SINGHANIA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-Mar-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 08-Mar-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 22-Feb-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 15-Feb-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 18-Jan-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 04-Jan-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 21-Jul-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 11-Jan-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 15-Mar-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 17-Feb-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 12-Jan-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 02-Dec-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 27-Oct-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 29-Sep-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 13-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 07-Jul-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 30-Mar-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 23-Mar-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 02-Mar-2009

    Case filed

    Registration No. SLP(C) No. 6016 - 6018/2009

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Kanthamma v. Pyari Kumari (SLP(C) 6016-6018/2009) Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions on 20/03/2013, holding them not maintainable. The petitioners challenged only the High Court's review petition orders (01/12/2008) without challenging the main orders (02/04/2008), which rendered the petitions defective. Next Steps: The Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order. Regarding respondents' ongoing execution proceedings, the Court directed petitioners to raise any objections before the Executing Court if permissible in law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case