Disposed

Tanzin Chhukit v. M.Sudha Devi and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2026COPC/1356/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The contempt petition alleged non-compliance with an earlier High Court order. The Additional Advocate General informed the court that a Division Bench had stayed the underlying order on which the petitioner relied for parity. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged this and agreed to close the petition with liberty to revive it if grievances remain after the appeal is decided. The court accordingly closed the petition with liberty to file an appropriate application for revival.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed with liberty to file an appropriate application for revival after decision in LPA No. 205/2025 if grievance remains unaddressed.

Tanzin Chhukit Vs M.Sudha Devi and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:HHC:40087

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

COPC No. 1356/2026 Decided on: 18.09.2026

¶4

Tanzin Chhukit		…..Petitioner
	Versus
Sudha Devi & ors. ____________________	__________________	….Respondents ________________________

¶5

Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the Petitioner: Ms. Mamta Garg, Advocate.

¶9

For the Respondents: Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Addl. A.G.

¶10

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)

¶11

The present petition has been filed alleging noncompliance of order, dated 11.05.2026, as passed by this Court in CWP No. 5857/2026.

¶12

2 Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record copy of order, dated 17.08.2026, as passed by learned Division Bench of this Court in batch of appeals, lead being LPA No.205/2025, titled as State of H.P. vs. Chunni Lal, whereby order, dated 21.03.2024, as passed in CWP No.

¶13

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶14

2056/2023, titled as Ghanshyam Dass vs. State of H.P. on the basis of which petitioner is seeking parity, has been stayed.

¶15

3 The learned counsel for the petitioner has acknowledged the aforesaid fact and submitted that for the time being, the instant petition can be closed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for revival of the instant petition in case, after decision of aforesaid LPA, her grievance still remains unaddressed. Ordered accordingly.

¶16

4 In view of above, nothing remains to be adjudicated

¶17

in the instant petition and the same is closed, however with liberty as aforesaid. The petition stands disposed of.

¶18

18.09.2026 (pankaj)

¶19

Judge

Tanzin Chhukit v. M.Sudha Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanzin Chhukit v. M.Sudha Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases