JAWAHAR LAL vs PUSHPINDER KUMAR — RSA/885/2019

Case under No Acts Defined Section 1. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010083292019

Filing Number

RSA/4676/2019

Filing Date

17-Jan-2019

Registration No

RSA/885/2019

Registration Date

01-Feb-2019

Judge

Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta

Coram

Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

CIVIL II(RSA) BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

No Acts Defined Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JAWAHAR LAL

    Adv. PREETWINDER SINGH DHALIWAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PUSHPINDER KUMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Nidhi GuptaView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Jawahar Lal's second appeal against concurrent lower court judgments that had dismissed his suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Pushpinder Kumar. The court found the appellant exhibited utterly casual and negligent conduct throughout the decade-old 2015 matter, with multiple non-appearances and failure to comply with court orders, including non-deposit of required costs despite restoration. Justice Nidhi Gupta held that litigants seeking discretionary relief must approach courts with diligence and bona fides, and cannot repeatedly seek indulgence while disregarding judicial orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Aug-2025

    Ms. Justice Nidhi GuptaView PDF

  4. 17-Jan-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/885/2019

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Jawahar Lal's second appeal against concurrent lower court judgments that had dismissed his suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Pushpinder Kumar. The court found the appellant exhibited utterly casual and negligent conduct throughout the decade-old 2015 matter, with multiple non-appearances and failure to comply with court orders, including non-deposit of required costs despite restoration. Justice Nidhi Gupta held that litigants seeking discretionary relief must approach courts with diligence and bona fides, and cannot repeatedly seek indulgence while disregarding judicial orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case