PRABHDEEP KAUR vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AMRITSAR TH ITS COMMISSIONER — RSA/1985/2015

Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 11-May-2015

CNR: PHHC011209642015

Filing Number

RSA/1985/2015

Filing Date

06-May-2015

Registration No

RSA/1985/2015

Registration Date

07-May-2015

Judge

Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta

Coram

Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

CIVIL II(RSA) BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

No Acts Defined

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PRABHDEEP KAUR

    Adv. RAJKARAN SINGH BRAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AMRITSAR TH ITS COMMISSIONER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Nidhi GuptaView PDF

    Case Summary: RSA/1985/2015 - Prabhdeep Kaur v. Municipal Corporation Amritsar The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Prabhdeep Kaur's second appeal for non-prosecution on May 11, 2026. The appellant's suit for permanent injunction against the Municipal Corporation Amritsar had been dismissed by both lower courts, and she appealed to the High Court. However, despite repeated opportunities and court orders since 2015—spanning nearly a decade—the appellant failed to place essential documents (certified copies of trial court judgment and lower appellate court grounds of appeal) on record. Justice Nidhi Gupta found the appellant exhibited "wholly casual, negligent and indifferent approach," with multiple adjournments due to non-appearance or dilatory tactics. The Court held that parties must diligently prosecute appeals and comply with procedural requirements, and that repeated non-compliance disentitles them from further indulgence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-Sep-2018

    Mr. Justice Amol Rattan Singh

  4. 04-Sep-2018

    Mr. Justice Arun Palli

  5. 24-Apr-2018

    Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg

  6. 15-Nov-2017

    Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg

  7. 02-Aug-2017

    Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari

  8. 02-Aug-2017

    Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal

  9. 07-Feb-2017

    Mrs Justice Daya Chaudhary

  10. 07-Feb-2017

    Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

  11. 23-Nov-2016

    Mr. Justice Arun Palli

  12. 02-Aug-2016

    Mr. Justice Amol Rattan Singh

  13. 02-Aug-2016

    Mr. Justice Arun Palli

  14. 25-Jul-2016

    Mr. Justice Amol Rattan Singh

  15. 25-Jul-2016

    Mr. Justice Arun Palli

  16. 01-Mar-2016

    Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

  17. 01-Mar-2016

    Mr. Justice Jaspal Singh

  18. 10-Dec-2015

    Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

  19. 10-Dec-2015

    Mr. Justice Jaspal Singh

  20. 14-Sep-2015

    Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

  21. 14-Sep-2015

    Mr. Justice Jaspal Singh

  22. 06-Aug-2015

    Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg

  23. 17-Jul-2015

    Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri

  24. 17-Jul-2015

    Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg

  25. 11-May-2015

    Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri

  26. 11-May-2015

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 06-May-2015

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/1985/2015

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RSA/1985/2015 - Prabhdeep Kaur v. Municipal Corporation Amritsar The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Prabhdeep Kaur's second appeal for non-prosecution on May 11, 2026. The appellant's suit for permanent injunction against the Municipal Corporation Amritsar had been dismissed by both lower courts, and she appealed to the High Court. However, despite repeated opportunities and court orders since 2015—spanning nearly a decade—the appellant failed to place essential documents (certified copies of trial court judgment and lower appellate court grounds of appeal) on record. Justice Nidhi Gupta found the appellant exhibited "wholly casual, negligent and indifferent approach," with multiple adjournments due to non-appearance or dilatory tactics. The Court held that parties must diligently prosecute appeals and comply with procedural requirements, and that repeated non-compliance disentitles them from further indulgence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case