AARTI SETH AND ANOTHER vs GOPAL KRISHAN AND ANOTHER — CR/3392/2024

Case under Constitution of India Section 227. Disposed: --ALLOWED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 30-May-2024

CNR: PHHC010741252024

Filing Number

CR/30537/2024

Filing Date

28-May-2024

Registration No

CR/3392/2024

Registration Date

28-May-2024

Judge

Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl

Coram

Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl

Bench Type

Single

Category

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

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AARTI SETH AND ANOTHER

    Adv. Varun Sharma

  2. 2.GOPAL KRISHAN

  3. 3.SANJEEV

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GOPAL KRISHAN AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.GOPAL KRISHAN

  3. 3.SANJEEV

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Vikas BahlView PDF

    Summary of CR-3392/2024 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed the revision petition and set aside the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' amendment application. The court held that necessary amendments must be allowed before trial commencement to avoid multiplicity of litigation, and courts cannot examine amendment merits at the permission stage. Since issues were framed after the amendment application was filed, the plaintiffs were entitled to add mandatory injunction relief based on post-suit encroachment and illegal construction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 28-May-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. CR/3392/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CR-3392/2024 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed the revision petition and set aside the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' amendment application. The court held that necessary amendments must be allowed before trial commencement to avoid multiplicity of litigation, and courts cannot examine amendment merits at the permission stage. Since issues were framed after the amendment application was filed, the plaintiffs were entitled to add mandatory injunction relief based on post-suit encroachment and illegal construction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case