SURJIT KAUR vs GURDEV SINGH AND OTHERS — CR/6733/2025

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 22-Sep-2025

CNR: PHHC011471412025

Filing Number

CR/57447/2025

Filing Date

09-Sep-2025

Registration No

CR/6733/2025

Registration Date

19-Sep-2025

Judge

Mr. Justice Parmod Goyal

Coram

Mr. Justice Parmod Goyal

Bench Type

Single

Category

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

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 12-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SURJIT KAUR

    Adv. ANUJ BALIAN

  2. 2.SURJIT KAUR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GURDEV SINGH AND OTHERS

  2. 2.SURJIT KAUR

  3. 3.SATNAM SINGH

  4. 4.SHRI RAM

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Parmod GoyalView PDF

    Summary The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petitioner's revision petition, overturning the trial court's dismissal of an application for additional evidence. The court held that the petitioner's application seeking handwriting expert examination and production of original documents (to compare signatures on a 1976 sale deed) was necessary for just adjudication, as the defendant had only produced photocopies during evidence and the signatures became available only at that stage. The court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing the application as belated and held without due diligence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CR/6733/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petitioner's revision petition, overturning the trial court's dismissal of an application for additional evidence. The court held that the petitioner's application seeking handwriting expert examination and production of original documents (to compare signatures on a 1976 sale deed) was necessary for just adjudication, as the defendant had only produced photocopies during evidence and the signatures became available only at that stage. The court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing the application as belated and held without due diligence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case