Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RAMARAVALUGAVADE versus SATABA GAVADU GAVADE (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.

Decided
18 November 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 740 · 1996 INSC 1331
Also cited as
  • (1997) 1 SCC 261 (7 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Delay condoned. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 740, margin F

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Cou11 ofBombay, made on December 8, 1994 dismissing the Civil Revision No. 632/91.

p. 740, margin G

The admitted position is that the uncle of the petitioner died pending Regular Civil Suit No. 51/65 in the Cou11 of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandgad. Since he died pending appeal, it was dismissed on August 4, 1967 as having abated. In Civil Revision No. 632/91 by order dated December 8. 1994. the High Court dismissed the same. The application was filed for bringing the Legal Representatives on record which was also dismissed as no proper explanation for condoning the delay was given. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

pp. 740–741, margin H

In view of the fact that the appellant is an illiterate farmer, the appropriate steps should have been taken by the counsel for the appellant on proper advice. In view of the fact that the counsel has not properly advised the appellant to take necessary steps, delay had occasioned. The High Cou11, therefore, was not right in refusing to condone the delay. It is brought to our notice that no application has been filed for setting aside the abatement and the appeal also stands abated. In view of the fact that the delay now stands condoned the abatement, also stands set aside.

p. 741, margin B

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal on merits within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order. No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 741, margin C