CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2012 › Sushil Chhibber v. Shashi Kumar Mehta

Sushil Chhibber v. Shashi Kumar Mehta

Supreme Court of India · 19 September 2012

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
19 September 2012
Case no.
C.A. No. 6911 of 2012
Bench
Surinder Singh Nijjar, H.L. Gokhale
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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL
APPEAL
NO.
6911
OF
2012

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.30717/2008) SUSHIL CHHIBBER & ANR. Appellant(s) :VERSUS:

SHASHI KUMAR MEHTA & ANR. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1.
Leave granted.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. We are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the application filed by the appellant herein for restoration of Regular Second Appeal No 119/1996 ought to have been allowed by the High Court. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the High Court on 29th September, 2008 in C.M. No.14139/2007 and CM No.14140/2007 in RSA No.119/1996 is set aside and the aforesaid Regular Second Appeal is restored to its original number.

JUDGMENT

4. In view of the fact that this litigation between the family members is pending for a long time, it would be in the interest of justice if the Regular Second Appeal is decided as expeditiously as possible. We, therefore, request High Court to expedite the hearing of the aforesaid Regular Second Appeal and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today.

5. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this appeal is disposed of.

.....................J
(SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

.....................J
(H.L. GOKHALE)

New Delhi;
September 19, 2012.

Ask CaseMinister about Sushil Chhibber v. Shashi Kumar Mehta

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