SUKHWINDER SINGH vs THE CHAIRMAN, PSPCL, THE MALL PATIALA AND OTHERS — RSA/2201/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 100. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC011122692024

Filing Number

RSA/46683/2024

Filing Date

23-Aug-2024

Registration No

RSA/2201/2024

Registration Date

02-Sep-2024

Judge

Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta

Coram

Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

CIVIL II(RSA) BRANCH

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 100

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUKHWINDER SINGH

    Adv. RS CHAUHAN

  2. 2.SUKHWINDER SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE CHAIRMAN, PSPCL, THE MALL PATIALA AND OTHERS

  2. 2.SUKHWINDER SINGH

  3. 3.SDO PSPCL

  4. 4.XEN PSPCL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Nidhi GuptaView PDF

    Case Summary: RSA/2201/2024 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Sukhwinder Singh's second appeal against concurrent district court judgments that had dismissed his suit for permanent injunction against PSPCL to prevent disconnection of two tubewell electricity connections. Key Reasoning: The court found that Singh failed to establish: (1) any actual threat of disconnection by PSPCL, as no notice or memo was issued; (2) that the connections were registered in his name or that he possessed electricity bills for them; and (3) that the defendant attempted disconnection. The court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal absent an error of law or procedure, and no such error was demonstrated here. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Aug-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/2201/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RSA/2201/2024 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Sukhwinder Singh's second appeal against concurrent district court judgments that had dismissed his suit for permanent injunction against PSPCL to prevent disconnection of two tubewell electricity connections. Key Reasoning: The court found that Singh failed to establish: (1) any actual threat of disconnection by PSPCL, as no notice or memo was issued; (2) that the connections were registered in his name or that he possessed electricity bills for them; and (3) that the defendant attempted disconnection. The court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal absent an error of law or procedure, and no such error was demonstrated here. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case