SIMARJEET KAUR vs MANINDER KAUR — CR/4070/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 227. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 14-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010802602026

Filing Number

CR/29139/2026

Filing Date

11-May-2026

Registration No

CR/4070/2026

Registration Date

12-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Coram

Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Category

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

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SIMARJEET KAUR

    Adv. KARNESH VERMA

  2. 2.MANINDER KAUR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MANINDER KAUR

  2. 2.MANINDER KAUR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Virinder AggarwalView PDF

    Case Summary: CR/4070/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the revision petition filed by Simarjeet Kaur challenging the lower court's order restoring a civil suit that had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The court upheld the restoration, finding the plaintiff's counsel's absence on 21.08.2024 was due to genuine illness and not deliberate negligence, and the restoration application was filed promptly within six days. The court applied the liberal construction principle of Order IX Rule 9 CPC to advance substantial justice, noting this was the first default and the suit had been diligently prosecuted since 2017, with adequate supporting affidavit evidence explaining the absence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CR/4070/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CR/4070/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the revision petition filed by Simarjeet Kaur challenging the lower court's order restoring a civil suit that had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The court upheld the restoration, finding the plaintiff's counsel's absence on 21.08.2024 was due to genuine illness and not deliberate negligence, and the restoration application was filed promptly within six days. The court applied the liberal construction principle of Order IX Rule 9 CPC to advance substantial justice, noting this was the first default and the suit had been diligently prosecuted since 2017, with adequate supporting affidavit evidence explaining the absence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case