PANNU LAND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD vs PAVITTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER — RSA/1791/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 100. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 11th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC010765382026
Next Hearing
11th May 2026
Filing Number
RSA/27633/2026
Filing Date
05-05-2026
Registration No
RSA/1791/2026
Registration Date
07-05-2026
Judge
MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Coram
MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Judicial Branch
CIVIL II(RSA) BRANCH
Decision Date
11th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PANNU LAND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD
Adv. RAJINDER GOYAL
PAVITTAR SINGH
Respondent(s)
PAVITTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER
PAVITTAR SINGH
BACHITTAR SINGH
Orders
Case Summary: RSA/1791/2026 Court Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's decree granting permanent injunction against Pannu Land Developers. The court held that co-sharers can seek injunctive relief when a co-owner's actions—here, constructing a large-scale industrial project without prior partition—are prejudicial to their interests and amount to ouster. Key Reasoning: Although a co-owner in exclusive possession generally cannot be restrained from construction, the court distinguished this case: the appellant, as a vendee from a joint owner, stands in the vendor's shoes and retains commonality of possession over the entire joint property. The construction of an industrial project without partition constitutes clear detriment to co-sharers' rights, justifying the injunction under established precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RSA/1791/2026 Court Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's decree granting permanent injunction against Pannu Land Developers. The court held that co-sharers can seek injunctive relief when a co-owner's actions—here, constructing a large-scale industrial project without prior partition—are prejudicial to their interests and amount to ouster. Key Reasoning: Although a co-owner in exclusive possession generally cannot be restrained from construction, the court distinguished this case: the appellant, as a vendee from a joint owner, stands in the vendor's shoes and retains commonality of possession over the entire joint property. The construction of an industrial project without partition constitutes clear detriment to co-sharers' rights, justifying the injunction under established precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts