GURJEET SINGH vs B. SINGLA AUTO TYRES AND ORS — CR/4769/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 227. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 02nd June 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 02-Jun-2026

CNR: PHHC010391722026

Filing Number

CR/13211/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

CR/4769/2026

Registration Date

01-Jun-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Coram

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Category

30.1 - CIVIL REVISION(I.O. AND OTHERS) ( 504 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

02-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GURJEET SINGH

    Adv. GURFATEH SINGH KHOSA

  2. 2.B SINGLA AUTO TYRES

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.B. SINGLA AUTO TYRES AND ORS

  2. 2.B SINGLA AUTO TYRES

  3. 3.JASWINDER SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Jun-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    Case Summary - CR/4769/2026 Gurjeet Singh sought stay of auction proceedings scheduled against him based on an ex-parte money decree passed by Civil Judge Moga. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that since Singh had already filed an appeal against the dismissal of his Order 9 Rule 13 CPC application (to set aside the ex-parte decree), only the appellate court could stay decree operation—not the revision court. Finding no grounds for stay in the revision petition, the court dismissed the petition as withdrawn by petitioner's counsel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CR/4769/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary - CR/4769/2026 Gurjeet Singh sought stay of auction proceedings scheduled against him based on an ex-parte money decree passed by Civil Judge Moga. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that since Singh had already filed an appeal against the dismissal of his Order 9 Rule 13 CPC application (to set aside the ex-parte decree), only the appellate court could stay decree operation—not the revision court. Finding no grounds for stay in the revision petition, the court dismissed the petition as withdrawn by petitioner's counsel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case