RAJINDER KUMAR ALIAS RAJU AND ARN vs ASHWANI KUMAR AND ANR — CR/1259/2024

Case under Constitution of India Section 227. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010272462024

Filing Number

CR/10836/2024

Filing Date

26-Feb-2024

Registration No

CR/1259/2024

Registration Date

27-Feb-2024

Judge

Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain

Coram

Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain

Bench Type

Single

Category

30.5 - ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 (PB.) ( 538 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJINDER KUMAR ALIAS RAJU AND ARN

    Adv. DARSHAN SINGH MALWAI

  2. 2.MANJIT KAUR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ASHWANI KUMAR AND ANR

  2. 2.JATINDER KUMAR @BOBBY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Pankaj JainView PDF

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court modified the appellate order restraining construction on suit property in a partition dispute between co-sharers. While the trial court had allowed the defendants to furnish existing construction subject to partition, the appellate court imposed a complete construction ban. The High Court took a middle ground: defendants can finish and add fixtures (doors, plaster, painting) to already-raised construction to make it inhabitable, but cannot raise any new construction. The defendants must file an affidavit undertaking not to construct further, and any existing construction remains subject to partition and cannot justify resisting partition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-Feb-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. CR/1259/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Punjab and Haryana High Court modified the appellate order restraining construction on suit property in a partition dispute between co-sharers. While the trial court had allowed the defendants to furnish existing construction subject to partition, the appellate court imposed a complete construction ban. The High Court took a middle ground: defendants can finish and add fixtures (doors, plaster, painting) to already-raised construction to make it inhabitable, but cannot raise any new construction. The defendants must file an affidavit undertaking not to construct further, and any existing construction remains subject to partition and cannot justify resisting partition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case