PREM SINGH vs PALA RAM — CR/3149/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 10-Apr-2026

CNR: PHHC010595892026

Filing Number

CR/21213/2026

Filing Date

08-Apr-2026

Registration No

CR/3149/2026

Registration Date

08-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Coram

Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Category

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

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 12-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PREM SINGH

    Adv. RAJESH KUMAR KASHYAP

  2. 2.PALA RAM

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PALA RAM

  2. 2.PALA RAM

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Virinder AggarwalView PDF

    Case Summary The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the defendant's revision petition challenging the trial court's rejection of his application to amend the written statement by adding a res judicata plea. The court upheld the dismissal, finding that the defendant failed to exercise due diligence—the facts were within his knowledge when filing the original written statement, yet he sought amendment only after the plaintiff concluded evidence and the case substantially progressed. Additionally, since the plaintiff was not party to the earlier litigation on which res judicata was based, allowing the amendment at this belated stage would improperly reopen the trial and cause prejudice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CR/3149/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the defendant's revision petition challenging the trial court's rejection of his application to amend the written statement by adding a res judicata plea. The court upheld the dismissal, finding that the defendant failed to exercise due diligence—the facts were within his knowledge when filing the original written statement, yet he sought amendment only after the plaintiff concluded evidence and the case substantially progressed. Additionally, since the plaintiff was not party to the earlier litigation on which res judicata was based, allowing the amendment at this belated stage would improperly reopen the trial and cause prejudice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case