SATPAL ABHISHEK VIG, NAVEEN GUPTA vs DILBAGH AND ORS — RSA/3952/2016

Case under No Acts Defined Section ---. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 21st April 2026.

CNR: PHHC011215752016

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

08th August 2016

Filing Number

RSA/3952/2016

Filing Date

05-08-2016

Registration No

RSA/3952/2016

Registration Date

05-08-2016

Judge

MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

Coram

MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

Bench Type

Single

Category

77.5 - EXECUTION PETITION (COMMERCIAL) ( 253 )

Sub-Category

( 921 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL II(RSA) BRANCH

Decision Date

21st April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

No Acts defined Section ---

Petitioner(s)

SATPAL ABHISHEK VIG, NAVEEN GUPTA

Respondent(s)

DILBAGH AND ORS

Hearing History

Judge: MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

08-08-2016
17-08-2018
06-03-2018
04-08-2017
09-02-2017

Orders

08-08-2016

MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

05-09-2016

MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

26-10-2016

MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

09-11-2016

MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

09-02-2017

MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

04-08-2017

MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

21-04-2026
MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

The High Court allowed the appellant's Second Appeal, setting aside concurrent judgments dismissing his declaratory suit. The Court held that in a related case (RSA-261-1999), it had already established that appellant Satpal was the owner in settled possession of the suit land, and therefore declared the revenue entries in favor of respondents 1-3 as illegal and void, restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court allowed the appellant's Second Appeal, setting aside concurrent judgments dismissing his declaratory suit. The Court held that in a related case (RSA-261-1999), it had already established that appellant Satpal was the owner in settled possession of the suit land, and therefore declared the revenue entries in favor of respondents 1-3 as illegal and void, restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case