SUDAM KISAN GAVANE (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. vs MANIK ANANTA SHIKKETOD(D) BY LRS.. — C.A. No. 5272/2010

Case under Section III. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010235432009

Filing Date

10-Aug-2009

Registration No

C.A. No. 5272/2010

Diary Number

23543/2009

Order Date

29-Aug-2019

Document Type

Judgement - of Main Case

Neutral Citation

2019 INSC 977

Disposal Type

Disposed Off

Last updated 06-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section III

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUDAM KISAN GAVANE (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

    Adv. B. SRIDHAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MANIK ANANTA SHIKKETOD(D) BY LRS..

    Adv. SUDHANSHU S. CHOUDHARI (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 29-Aug-2019

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 29-Aug-2019

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  4. 28-Aug-2019

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  5. 23-Apr-2018

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 23-Apr-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 06-Jan-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 06-Jan-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 11-Nov-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 11-Nov-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 01-Sep-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 01-Sep-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 05-Jul-2016

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 04-Jul-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 09-Jul-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 01-Apr-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 11-Mar-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 21-Jan-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 08-Dec-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 03-Nov-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  21. 10-Aug-2009

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 5272/2010

casestatus.in Summary

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the High Court, finding procedural error in the High Court's handling of the second appeal. The Court held that the High Court violated Section 100 CPC by failing to formulate substantial questions of law before hearing arguments; instead, it formulated questions only in the judgment, denying parties fair opportunity to address them. The High Court was directed to reframe questions after hearing parties and decide the appeal afresh with priority. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case