Single bench disposed of an Article 226 petition seeking protection against alleged unlawful entry in a shop. The court held the dispute was civil in nature and no threat to life existed, dismissing the writ.
Writ petition disposed of; liberty granted to petitioner to avail legal remedies in accordance with law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRWP-855-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
107
CRWP-855-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.05.2025
Sangeeta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advo c ate for the petitioner.
Ms. Himani Arora, AAG, Pu n jab.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.13 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRWP-855-2025 (O&M) -2-
the matter , the dispute between the partie s was found to be of civil nature. No threat was found to the life and liberty o f the petitioner. In view of the s a me, finding n o substance in the allegations levelled by the petitioner ag a inst responden t No. 7, both of the said compla i nts were filed.
13.05.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Ansari JUDGE Whe t her speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whe t her reportable Yes/No
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.13 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India requires adjudication on the merits given that the dispute was found to be of civil nature.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sangeeta
State of Punjab
Respondent No. 7
Manisha Batra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
