PARDEEP GOYAL & ORS vs SUBHASH CHANDER & ORS — RSA/4513/2017

Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 22-Nov-2017

CNR: PHHC011298462017

Filing Number

RSA/4513/2017

Filing Date

25-May-2017

Registration No

RSA/4513/2017

Registration Date

19-Sep-2017

Judge

Mr. Justice Vikram Aggarwal

Coram

Mr. Justice Vikram Aggarwal

Bench Type

Single

Category

26 - RSA ( 496 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL II(RSA) BRANCH

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

No Acts Defined

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PARDEEP GOYAL & ORS

    Adv. KUNAL MULWANI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SUBHASH CHANDER & ORS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Vikram AggarwalView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appellants' second appeal, affirming that the plaintiffs failed to prove they were ready and willing to perform their part of an agreement to sell property worth Rs. 2.96 crores. The court found the plaintiffs could not demonstrate possession of the requisite funds, failed to produce bank statements despite opportunity, and did not present the promised earnest money cheques to the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Sep-2018

    Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta

  4. 07-Sep-2018

    —

    Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon

  5. 31-Aug-2018

    Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta

  6. 31-Aug-2018

    —

    Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon

  7. 21-Aug-2018

    Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta

  8. 21-Aug-2018

    —

    Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon

  9. 28-Feb-2018

    —

    Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg

  10. 22-Nov-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  11. 25-May-2017

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/4513/2017

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appellants' second appeal, affirming that the plaintiffs failed to prove they were ready and willing to perform their part of an agreement to sell property worth Rs. 2.96 crores. The court found the plaintiffs could not demonstrate possession of the requisite funds, failed to produce bank statements despite opportunity, and did not present the promised earnest money cheques to the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case