MS. SONIA SACHDEVA AND ANOTHER vs NARESH KUMAR NARULA AND ANOTHER — CR/4017/2025

Case under Constitution of India Section 227. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 12th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 08-Jul-2025

CNR: PHHC011025772025

Filing Number

CR/39807/2025

Filing Date

04-Jul-2025

Registration No

CR/4017/2025

Registration Date

05-Jul-2025

Judge

Ms. Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan

Coram

Ms. Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan

Bench Type

Single

Category

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

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

12-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MS. SONIA SACHDEVA AND ANOTHER

    Adv. Tarun Singla

  2. 2.NARESH KUMAR NARULA

  3. 3.NARANG SALES COROPRATAION

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NARESH KUMAR NARULA AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.NARESH KUMAR NARULA

  3. 3.NARANG SALES COROPRATAION

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Harpreet Kaur JeewanView PDF

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by Ms. Sonia Sachdeva and another challenging the trial court's dismissal of their application seeking directions to open a locked factory gate. The court found that disputed possession and tenancy terms constituted matters for trial, and since the petitioners failed to produce documentary evidence of their tenancy rights despite prior court orders, the trial court properly declined interim relief at the interlocutory stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CR/4017/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by Ms. Sonia Sachdeva and another challenging the trial court's dismissal of their application seeking directions to open a locked factory gate. The court found that disputed possession and tenancy terms constituted matters for trial, and since the petitioners failed to produce documentary evidence of their tenancy rights despite prior court orders, the trial court properly declined interim relief at the interlocutory stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case