CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2016 › Shivanagowda Shankargouda Desai v. M. Channaveerappa Modi (d

Shivanagowda Shankargouda Desai v. M. Channaveerappa Modi (d) by Lrs.

Supreme Court of India · 6 January 2016

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
6 January 2016
Case no.
C.A. No. 2508 of 2007
Bench
Anil R. Dave, Adarsh Kumar Goel
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

JUDGMENT

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2508 OF 2007

SHIVANAGOWDA SHANKARGOUDA DESAI ... APPELLANT(S)

VS.

M. CHANNAVEERAPPA MODI (D) BY LRS.& ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Though served, nobody appears for the respondents.

3. In view of the fact that perhaps certain incorrect facts have been recorded in the impugned judgment and more particularly, the Second Appeal has been decided at the admission stage, without appearance of the appellant, we are of the view that it would be just and appropriate if the High Court reconsiders the entire Second Appeal and decides it afresh.

4. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment is set aside. The Second Appeal shall be restored to its original number. The matter is remanded to the High Court so that after hearing the parties, it can be decided afresh.

JUDGMENT

5. The High Court shall notify the afore-stated Second Appeal for hearing on 15th February, 2016, so that the appeal can be decided at an early date.

6. The civil appeal is disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

..............J.

[ANIL R. DAVE]

..............J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi; 6th January, 2016.

Ask CaseMinister about Shivanagowda Shankargouda Desai v. M. Channaveerappa Modi (d) by Lrs.

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp