SARWAN KUMAR ALIAS SARWAN TULI vs PREET PAL SING VIRK — RSA/2019/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 100. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010282162023

Filing Number

RSA/11110/2023

Filing Date

01-Mar-2023

Registration No

RSA/2019/2023

Registration Date

30-Jun-2023

Judge

Mr. Justice Parmod Goyal

Coram

Mr. Justice Parmod Goyal

Judicial Branch

CIVIL II(RSA) BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 100

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SARWAN KUMAR ALIAS SARWAN TULI

    Adv. SANDEEP ARORA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PREET PAL SING VIRK

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Parmod GoyalView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Sarwan Kumar's appeal against a recovery suit decision, affirming that he owed Rs. 3,85,950/- to Preet Pal Singh Virk under a compromise agreement dated 11.08.2014. The court found the compromise agreement valid based on the appellant's admitted signatures and corroborating witness testimony, and noted his subsequent part-payments (Rs.14,050/-) contradicted his claim that all accounts were settled at partnership dissolution. The suit was held timely as the limitation period was extended by the part-payments made in 2015. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Mar-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/2019/2023

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Sarwan Kumar's appeal against a recovery suit decision, affirming that he owed Rs. 3,85,950/- to Preet Pal Singh Virk under a compromise agreement dated 11.08.2014. The court found the compromise agreement valid based on the appellant's admitted signatures and corroborating witness testimony, and noted his subsequent part-payments (Rs.14,050/-) contradicted his claim that all accounts were settled at partnership dissolution. The suit was held timely as the limitation period was extended by the part-payments made in 2015. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case