Dismissed¶24

Satpaul v. Bhajan Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Sept 2025CR/392/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court; CR-392-2008; CM-17967-CII-2025; Order 23 Rule 3 CPC; compromise deed dated 30.08.2025 (Annexure C-1); revision by tenant against dismissal of leave to defend application dated 23.10.2007; vacant possession handed over 10.09.2025; dismissed as withdrawn; Satpaul v. Bhajan Kaur @ Harbhajan Kaur; Archana Puri, J.; decision date 19.09.2025; rent/tenancy revision; withdrawal on compromise.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition CR-392-2008 dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of the compromise deed dated 30.08.2025; CM-17967-CII-2025 disposed of accordingly. ¶24

Satpaul Vs Bhajan Kaur — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

CR-392-2008

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Sr. No.120-4

¶5

CM-17967-CII-2025 IN/AND CR-392-2008 Date of Decision: 19.09.2025

¶6

SATPAUL

¶7

....Applicant/Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

BHAJAN KAUR @ HARBHAJAN KAUR

¶10

.....Non-applicant/Respondent

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

¶12

Present:Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chaubey, Advocate for non-applicant/respondent (Through video conferencing).

¶14

¶15

ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)

¶16

CM-17967-CII-2025 has been filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC for disposal of the revision petition i.e. CR-392-2008, on the basis of the compromise deed dated 30.08.2025.

¶17

The revision petition has been filed by the tenant to assail the order dated 23.10.2007, whereby an application for leave to defend, was dismissed. However, during the pendency of the revision, compromise has been effected between the parties, copy whereof is Annexure C-1. On the basis of the recitals of the said compromise, counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that the vacant possession of the tenanted premises, has since been handed over to the respondent on 10.09.2025.

¶18

Even, counsel for the respondent, who is making appearance through video conferencing, do not dispute about the genuineness of the said

¶19

Sonu 2025.09.19 15:45 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

¶20

¶21

CR-392-2008

¶22

compromise reached between the parties and admits that the vacant possession of the tenanted premises, has been received by the respondent.

¶23

In the given circumstances, counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that he does not want to pursue with the revision petition and the same be dismissed as withdrawn.

¶24

Ordered accordingly.

¶25

19.09.2025

¶26

(ARCHANA PURI) JUDGE

¶27

Sonu

¶28

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶29

Sonu 2025.09.19 15:45 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

Satpaul v. Bhajan Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpaul v. Bhajan Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Pinky Crockery House and Anr. Vs Amarjit Kaur and Ors.

Rajni Devi Vs Naresh Kumar

Anjali Devi @ Anjali Bhagat Vs Narinder Kumar

(O&M)Bihari Lal Vs Bhajan Kaur

Bihari Lal Vs Bhajan Kaur

Ram Lal / Bihari Lal Vs Bhajan Kaur