SOM NATH AND OTHERS vs KAMLESH RANI — RSA/835/2024

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

Case disposed Next hearing 21-Mar-2024

CNR: PHHC010378462024

Filing Number

RSA/15328/2024

Filing Date

18-Mar-2024

Registration No

RSA/835/2024

Registration Date

19-Mar-2024

Judge

Mr. Justice Parmod Goyal

Coram

Mr. Justice Parmod Goyal

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

Code of Civil Procedure Section 100

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SOM NATH AND OTHERS

    Adv. AMIT DHAWAN

  2. 2.SOM NATH

  3. 3.NEELAM RANI

  4. 4.OM NATH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KAMLESH RANI

  2. 2.SOM NATH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Parmod GoyalView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the First Appellate Court's decision granting permanent injunction in favor of Kamlesh Rani against Som Nath. The court found that a 4-foot street existed on the northern side of the defendants' property and southern side of the plaintiff's house, which the defendants attempted to encroach upon with wooden gates. The court rejected the defendants' claim that the street formed part of their 7-marla property, finding that the sale deeds merely referenced the street as a boundary marker, not as part of their land purchase, and held that the defendants failed to produce evidence establishing ownership over the disputed street. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/835/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the First Appellate Court's decision granting permanent injunction in favor of Kamlesh Rani against Som Nath. The court found that a 4-foot street existed on the northern side of the defendants' property and southern side of the plaintiff's house, which the defendants attempted to encroach upon with wooden gates. The court rejected the defendants' claim that the street formed part of their 7-marla property, finding that the sale deeds merely referenced the street as a boundary marker, not as part of their land purchase, and held that the defendants failed to produce evidence establishing ownership over the disputed street. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case