VINOD KUMAR vs PARVESH RANI AND OTHERS — CR/1116/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 01-Apr-2026

CNR: PHHC011809832025

Filing Number

CR/70474/2025

Filing Date

07-Nov-2025

Registration No

CR/1116/2026

Registration Date

02-Feb-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Coram

Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Bench Type

Single

Category

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

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VINOD KUMAR

    Adv. PARVEEN CHAUHAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PARVESH RANI AND OTHERS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Virinder AggarwalView PDF

    Case Summary: CR-1116-2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Vinod Kumar's revision petition challenging the Executing Court's dismissal of his second execution petition. The court held that once possession of the decretal property was formally delivered to Kumar in 2018 and he judicially acknowledged receipt, the original decree stood fully satisfied and exhausted. The court rejected Kumar's claim that he made the acknowledgment under mistaken belief or humanitarian considerations, ruling that he cannot subsequently approbate and reprobate by denying delivery. Any dispute over possession thereafter constitutes a fresh cause of action requiring separate legal remedies, not a second execution petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CR/1116/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CR-1116-2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Vinod Kumar's revision petition challenging the Executing Court's dismissal of his second execution petition. The court held that once possession of the decretal property was formally delivered to Kumar in 2018 and he judicially acknowledged receipt, the original decree stood fully satisfied and exhausted. The court rejected Kumar's claim that he made the acknowledgment under mistaken belief or humanitarian considerations, ruling that he cannot subsequently approbate and reprobate by denying delivery. Any dispute over possession thereafter constitutes a fresh cause of action requiring separate legal remedies, not a second execution petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case