SUSHILA vs KARAN SINGH AND ORS — CR/5935/2024

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

Case disposed Next hearing 16-Oct-2024

CNR: PHHC011363162024

Filing Number

CR/57632/2024

Filing Date

03-Oct-2024

Registration No

CR/5935/2024

Registration Date

14-Oct-2024

Judge

Mr. Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor

Coram

Mr. Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor

Bench Type

Single

Category

30.1 - CIVIL REVISION(I.O. AND OTHERS) ( 504 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUSHILA

    Adv. VEENA HOODA

  2. 2.SUSHILA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KARAN SINGH AND ORS

  2. 2.SUSHILA

  3. 3.MOTI

  4. 4.KISHAN

  5. 5.RATTAN SINGH

  6. 6.DAYA KAUR

  7. 7.RAJWANTI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Yashvir Singh RathorView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Sushila's revision petition as not maintainable, holding that the proper remedy against the lower court's order rejecting restoration of a defaulted appeal lies through an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(t) CPC, not revision. The court found that the Additional District Judge had correctly dismissed the application for restoration despite Sushila's claims of illness and COVID-19 pandemic impact, noting she had actively participated in concurrent revenue court proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 03-Oct-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. CR/5935/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Sushila's revision petition as not maintainable, holding that the proper remedy against the lower court's order rejecting restoration of a defaulted appeal lies through an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(t) CPC, not revision. The court found that the Additional District Judge had correctly dismissed the application for restoration despite Sushila's claims of illness and COVID-19 pandemic impact, noting she had actively participated in concurrent revenue court proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case