IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (107) CWP No. 9092 of 2025 Date of Decision : 01.04.2025 Smt. Sushila Sharma ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Veena Sharma and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Imran A. Ali, Advocate for Mr. Ankit Chowdhri, Advocate for the petitioner. *** Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inadvertently, all the facts required to be brought before the Court to press the prayer could not be mentioned in the present petition, hence, the present petition may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action with better particulars. 2. Ordered accordingly. April 01, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) kanchan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No Kanchan 2025.04.02 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment