SWARANBIR KAUR vs PRITPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER — CR/4110/2026

Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 15-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010801272026

Filing Number

CR/29071/2026

Filing Date

11-May-2026

Registration No

CR/4110/2026

Registration Date

13-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor

Coram

Mr. Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor

Category

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

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SWARANBIR KAUR

    Adv. Ankur Ghai

  2. 2.SWARANBIR KAUR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PRITPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.SWARANBIR KAUR

  3. 3.JOGINDER SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Yashvir Singh RathorView PDF

    Case Summary: CR-4110-2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana set aside the trial court's order closing Defendant No.2's evidence and directed the lower court to grant further opportunities for evidence-recording. The court found that closing an 86-year-old witness's evidence after he suffered a fracture and was medically advised bed rest violated his right to lead evidence, especially since he had regularly appeared for ten consecutive dates without fault and the case age alone (20 years) cannot justify denying a party's procedural rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CR/4110/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CR-4110-2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana set aside the trial court's order closing Defendant No.2's evidence and directed the lower court to grant further opportunities for evidence-recording. The court found that closing an 86-year-old witness's evidence after he suffered a fracture and was medically advised bed rest violated his right to lead evidence, especially since he had regularly appeared for ten consecutive dates without fault and the case age alone (20 years) cannot justify denying a party's procedural rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case