JOGINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER vs HARI SINGH AND OTHERS — RA-CR/71/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010749602026

Filing Number

RA-CR/27012/2026

Filing Date

01-May-2026

Registration No

RA-CR/71/2026

Registration Date

08-May-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta

Coram

Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

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

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JOGINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

    Adv. HARPAL SINGH SIROHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HARI SINGH AND OTHERS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Nidhi GuptaView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a review petition by Joginder Singh challenging the court's prior dismissal of civil revision petitions. The petitioners sought to challenge the trial court's burden of proof regarding forgery of a 2000 will and requested handwriting expert examination and reframing of issues, all moved belatedly after evidence closure. Justice Nidhi Gupta held that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used for re-argument on merits; since the petitioners had already pleaded forgery in 2015 without raising objections to issue framing, no error warranting review existed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. RA-CR/71/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a review petition by Joginder Singh challenging the court's prior dismissal of civil revision petitions. The petitioners sought to challenge the trial court's burden of proof regarding forgery of a 2000 will and requested handwriting expert examination and reframing of issues, all moved belatedly after evidence closure. Justice Nidhi Gupta held that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used for re-argument on merits; since the petitioners had already pleaded forgery in 2015 without raising objections to issue framing, no error warranting review existed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case