BIMLA DEVI AND OTHERS vs MANOJ KUMAR JINDAL AND ANOTHER — RSA/3627/2025

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 03-Nov-2025

CNR: PHHC011681962025

Filing Number

RSA/65355/2025

Filing Date

14-Oct-2025

Registration No

RSA/3627/2025

Registration Date

17-Oct-2025

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

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 28-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BIMLA DEVI AND OTHERS

    Adv. P S JAMMU

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MANOJ KUMAR JINDAL AND ANOTHER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Vikram AggarwalView PDF

    Summary of RSA 3627/2025 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana reversed the first appellate court's decision and dismissed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of a property sale agreement. The court found the plaintiff failed to prove he was ready and willing to perform his contractual obligation, as he could not demonstrate possession of the ₹1.51 crore balance consideration—the key evidence (a bank account statement) belonged to a different entity with no proven connection to him and was improperly admitted. The court also noted the plaintiff's 16-month delay in pursuing legal remedies and referral to Income Tax authorities regarding the ₹1.01 crore cash transaction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/3627/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of RSA 3627/2025 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana reversed the first appellate court's decision and dismissed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of a property sale agreement. The court found the plaintiff failed to prove he was ready and willing to perform his contractual obligation, as he could not demonstrate possession of the ₹1.51 crore balance consideration—the key evidence (a bank account statement) belonged to a different entity with no proven connection to him and was improperly admitted. The court also noted the plaintiff's 16-month delay in pursuing legal remedies and referral to Income Tax authorities regarding the ₹1.01 crore cash transaction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case