RAJ KUMAR vs SATISH KUMAR — CR/6859/2024

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

Case disposed Next hearing 26-Nov-2024

CNR: PHHC011613942024

Filing Number

CR/67733/2024

Filing Date

19-Nov-2024

Registration No

CR/6859/2024

Registration Date

22-Nov-2024

Judge

Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl

Coram

Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl

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

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJ KUMAR

    Adv. TEJASWINI

  2. 2.RAJ KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SATISH KUMAR

  2. 2.RAJ KUMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Vikas BahlView PDF

    Case Summary: CR/6859/2024 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed Raj Kumar's revision petition against the trial court's dismissal of his application for police help to enforce an injunction order. The court held that a tenant with a valid rent agreement (dated 14.05.2018) could seek police assistance to enforce an interim injunction protecting his possession, and that merely having an alternative remedy under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC does not bar such assistance. The court emphasized the distinction between punitive action for breach and enforcement of court orders, ruling that courts have inherent power to grant police help to prevent violation of injunction orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Nov-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. CR/6859/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CR/6859/2024 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed Raj Kumar's revision petition against the trial court's dismissal of his application for police help to enforce an injunction order. The court held that a tenant with a valid rent agreement (dated 14.05.2018) could seek police assistance to enforce an interim injunction protecting his possession, and that merely having an alternative remedy under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC does not bar such assistance. The court emphasized the distinction between punitive action for breach and enforcement of court orders, ruling that courts have inherent power to grant police help to prevent violation of injunction orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case