NIRMAL SINGH vs PARAMJIT SINGH — RSA/1842/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 100. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010080792023

Filing Number

RSA/3064/2023

Filing Date

18-Jan-2023

Registration No

RSA/1842/2023

Registration Date

13-Jun-2023

Judge

Mr. Justice Vikram Aggarwal

Coram

Mr. Justice Vikram Aggarwal

Judicial Branch

CIVIL II(RSA) BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 100

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NIRMAL SINGH

    Adv. NARINDER LUCKY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PARAMJIT SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Vikram AggarwalView PDF

    Case Summary: RSA/1842/2023 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Nirmal Singh's appeal against the lower courts' dismissal of his suit seeking Rs. 1,60,312 for fertilizer, pesticide, and seed sales to Paramjit Singh. The court upheld concurrent findings that the plaintiff failed to prove the debt through credible evidence—the ledger (Exhibit P.1) lacked proper authentication, bore no signatures or seals connecting it to his business, contained vague entries, and could not be linked to the defendant. Witness testimony proved unreliable with inconsistencies in qualifications and inability to specify transaction dates, while no bills or supporting documents were produced. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Jan-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/1842/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RSA/1842/2023 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Nirmal Singh's appeal against the lower courts' dismissal of his suit seeking Rs. 1,60,312 for fertilizer, pesticide, and seed sales to Paramjit Singh. The court upheld concurrent findings that the plaintiff failed to prove the debt through credible evidence—the ledger (Exhibit P.1) lacked proper authentication, bore no signatures or seals connecting it to his business, contained vague entries, and could not be linked to the defendant. Witness testimony proved unreliable with inconsistencies in qualifications and inability to specify transaction dates, while no bills or supporting documents were produced. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case