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.

Case disposed Next hearing 11-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010765382026

Filing Number

RSA/27633/2026

Filing Date

05-May-2026

Registration No

RSA/1791/2026

Registration Date

07-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Coram

Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Judicial Branch

CIVIL II(RSA) BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 100

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PANNU LAND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

    Adv. RAJINDER GOYAL

  2. 2.PAVITTAR SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PAVITTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.PAVITTAR SINGH

  3. 3.BACHITTAR SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Virinder AggarwalView PDF

    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.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/1791/2026

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case