VIJAYPAL ALIAS AJAYPAL AND OTHERS vs COMMISSIONER GURUGRAM DIVISION GURUGRAM AND OTHERS — RA-CW/224/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010760322026

e-Filing Number

04-05-2026

Filing Number

RA-CW/27430/2026

Filing Date

04-May-2026

Registration No

RA-CW/224/2026

Registration Date

04-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger

Coram

Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

18.11 - LAND LAWS S.B. ( 448 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VIJAYPAL ALIAS AJAYPAL AND OTHERS

    Adv. P R YADAV

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.COMMISSIONER GURUGRAM DIVISION GURUGRAM AND OTHERS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Harsh BungerView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the review petition filed by Vijaypal and others against the February 25, 2026 judgment in CWP-5860-2026. The petitioners sought clubbing of three separate partition applications (khewats) with different co-sharers, arguing it would benefit the parties. The Court held that partition proceedings cannot be clubbed unless all co-sharers in respective khewats consent; mere convenience of some parties is insufficient. The counsel conceded no consensus existed among co-sharers, and the original Commissioner's order rejecting the clubbing plea was upheld. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. RA-CW/224/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the review petition filed by Vijaypal and others against the February 25, 2026 judgment in CWP-5860-2026. The petitioners sought clubbing of three separate partition applications (khewats) with different co-sharers, arguing it would benefit the parties. The Court held that partition proceedings cannot be clubbed unless all co-sharers in respective khewats consent; mere convenience of some parties is insufficient. The counsel conceded no consensus existed among co-sharers, and the original Commissioner's order rejecting the clubbing plea was upheld. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case