ANGOORI DEVI AND OTHERS vs VED PARKASH AND OTHERS — CR/4779/2022

Case under Constitution of India Section 227. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC011207612022

Filing Number

CR/48404/2022

Filing Date

19-Oct-2022

Registration No

CR/4779/2022

Registration Date

21-Oct-2022

Judge

Mr. Justice Harkesh Manuja

Coram

Mr. Justice Harkesh Manuja

Bench Type

Single

Category

30.6 - ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 (HRY.) ( 537 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANGOORI DEVI AND OTHERS

    Adv. AASHNA GILL

  2. 2.PARDEEP

  3. 3.SUNIL

  4. 4.PARMOD

  5. 5.POONAM

  6. 6.PARVEEN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VED PARKASH AND OTHERS

  2. 2.RAVINDER

  3. 3.ANJU

  4. 4.MANJU

  5. 5.SUNITA

  6. 6.SANJAY TH LRS

  7. 7.RAJWANTI

  8. 8.ASMIT

  9. 9.SANGEETA

  10. 10.PINKU

  11. 11.MANJEET

  12. 12.AJIT SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Harkesh ManujaView PDF

    Case Summary: CR 4779/2022 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the petitioners' revision petition challenging interim orders restraining them from altering disputed property during partition and possession suit proceedings. Finding no grounds for interference, the court upheld the restraint orders, which had remained operative for 4.5 years, while directing the trial court to expedite and conclude the suit within two months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Oct-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. CR/4779/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CR 4779/2022 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the petitioners' revision petition challenging interim orders restraining them from altering disputed property during partition and possession suit proceedings. Finding no grounds for interference, the court upheld the restraint orders, which had remained operative for 4.5 years, while directing the trial court to expedite and conclude the suit within two months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case