Supreme Court of India
M/S CHOPRA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusHARBINDER SINGH SEKHON & ORS.
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 335
- Decided
- 8 April 2026
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
A person directly and demonstrably affected by an interim order is a proper party and cannot be excluded, so the High Court's denial of impleadment and clarification was set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be impleaded while the other proceedings may continue independently.
Summary
M/s Chopra Hotels Private Limited (the appellant) owned a property whose building plan was affected by an interim order dated 24‑12‑2025 issued in CWP No. 38742 of 2025, which kept certain provisions of the Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025 in abeyance. The High Court refused to implead the appellant in that writ proceeding and declined to modify the interim order, holding that the appellant had no lis. The appellant contended that the interim order directly impacted its property and that it was a proper party whose presence was necessary for a fair adjudication. The Supreme Court examined the principles of impleadment, distinguishing between necessary and proper parties, and held that a person directly affected by an interim order cannot be shut out even if not an original party. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order, ordered the appellant’s impleadment in CWP No. 38742 of 2025, and allowed the High Court to proceed with that writ independently of the related Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 760 of 2026) and Civil Revision (CR No. 2579 of 2026), which may be heard together but on their own merits. The appeals were allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the appellant had no lis and was not entitled to be heard in CWP No. 38742 of 2025.
- Whether the appellant should be impleaded as a proper party in the writ proceedings despite not being an original party.
- Whether the High Court's refusal to clarify or modify the interim order dated 24‑12‑2025 was legally valid.
- Whether the subsequent proceedings (LPA No. 760 of 2026 and CR No. 2579 of 2026) must be stayed pending the final determination of the parent writ.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order I Rule 10
- Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976s. 269
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the Appellant had no lis before it and was not entitled to be heard in the proceedings in CWP No. 38742 of 2025, and, if not, what consequential directions ought to follow in relation to the No. 38742 of 2025 and the further course to be adopted in respect of LPA No. 760 of 2026 and CR No. 2579 of 2026. Headnotes† Impleadment – Writ Proceedings – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.I, r.10 – Proper Party – Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976
Subjects
Impleadment in writ petitionProper partyNecessary partyInterim orderClarification/modification of interim orderPunjab Municipal Corporation ActSection 269Code of Civil ProcedureOrder I Rule 10Article 226Remedy preservationLetters Patent AppealCivil RevisionDemolition order
Judgment
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 444 : 2026 INSC 335
M/s Chopra Hotels Private Limited
v.
Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 4318-4319 of 2026)
08 April 2026
[Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the Appellant had
no lis before it and was not entitled to be heard in the proceedings in
CWP No. 38742 of 2025, and, if not, what consequential directions
ought to follow in relation to the Appellant’s participation in CWP
No. 38742 of 2025 and the further course to be adopted in respect
of LPA No. 760 of 2026 and CR No. 2579 of 2026.
Headnotes†
Impleadment – Writ Proceedings – Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 – Or.I, r.10 – Proper Party – Punjab Municipal Corporation
Act, 1976 – Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025 – By way of
the impugned judgment passed in CWP No.38742 of 2025, High
Court dismissed the applications filed by the Appellant seeking
impleadment in the writ proceedings as well as clarification /
modification of the interim order dated 24.12.2025 passed in
the said writ petition – Interference with:
Held: In writ proceedings, where the Court is called upon to interpret
the scope and operation of an interim order already passed by it,
a person who is shown to be directly and demonstrably affected
by that order cannot be shut out merely because such person
was not an original party to the principal challenge – Appellant
cannot be denied participation in CWP No.38742 of 2025 when the
order passed therein has already produced direct, immediate and
demonstrable civil consequences for it – Appellant may not have
been an original party to the broader challenge laid in CWP No.38742
of 2025 – It may also be that no final determination on the merits
of the 2025 Rules was called for at the instance of the Appellant in
those proceedings yet, when the Appellant demonstrated that the
* Author
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 445
M/s Chopra Hotels Private Limited v. Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors.
interim order passed in the said writ petition was being invoked
to its detriment and was materially affecting the treatment of its
property by the authorities, the Appellant could not be regarded as
a stranger to the controversy – Appellant was a proper party whose
presence would enable the High Court to deal in a fuller and fairer
manner with the consequences of its own interim order – Further,
the manner in which the prayer for clarification/modification was
rejected is also unsustainable – There is a clear and substantial
overlap between the present appeals, the proceedings in CWP
No.38742 of 2025, LPA No.760 of 2026 (arising out of the dismissal
of independent writ petition filed by the Appellant against the rejection
of its representation and revised plans), and CR No.2579 of 2026
(arising out of the dismissal of the statutory appeal u/s.269 of the
1976 Act) – However, it is neither necessary nor proper to hold that
LPA No.760 of 2026 and CR No.2579 of 2026 must await the final
adjudication of the entire challenge in the parent writ – Equally, there
is no reason why CWP No.38742 of 2025 itself should be held back
merely because the Appellant has independently instituted the said
proceedings – Impugned orders set aside – Appellant impleaded
in CWP No.38742 of 2025 – High Court at liberty to proceed with
CWP No.38742 of 2025 independently of LPA No.760 of 2026 and
CR No.2579 of 2026. [Paras 7, 9, 12, 16, 19]
Reliefs/Remedies – Courts must lean in favour of preserving,
and not stultifying, a remedy otherwise available in law –
Present appeals arise out of the order dated 26.02.2026 refusing
impleadment and clarification/modification in CWP No.38742 of
2025 – LPA No.760 of 2026 arises out of the dismissal of CWP
No.5839 of 2026, which was an independent writ petition instituted
by the Appellant against the rejection of its representation and
revised plans – CR No.2579 of 2026, in turn, arises out of the
dismissal of the statutory appeal u/s.269 of the Punjab Municipal
Corporation Act, 1976:
Held: Both the intra court appeal and the civil revision are separate
proceedings arising from distinct causes, even though each is affected,
in part, by the effect attributed to the order dated 24.12.2025 –
The mere circumstance that one proceeding may furnish part of
the legal backdrop of another does not, by itself, require that the
latter proceedings be kept in abeyance until the former attains
finality – Unless there is a statutory interdict, or unless the nature
446 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of the controversy is such that the later proceeding cannot at all be
meaningfully adjudicated without first deciding the former, the Court
must be slow to render otherwise maintainable remedies dormant
for an indefinite period – To require the Appellant to wait for the final
decision in CWP No.38742 of 2025 before LPA No.760 of 2026 and
CR No.2579 of 2026 can even be heard would, in effect, postpone
adjudication of the Appellant’s independent remedies to an uncertain
stage – If such proceedings are kept pending merely because a
broader challenge to the 2025 Rules is also pending, the result
may well be to make the available remedies illusory in practical
terms – Courts must ordinarily lean in favour of preserving, and not
stultifying, a remedy otherwise available in law, particularly where
the controversy is still live and the consequences asserted by the
party are continuing. [Paras 13, 15]
Case Law Cited
Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention
Centre and Hotels Private Limited (2010) 7 SCC 417 : (2010) 7
SCC 417 – referred to.
List of Acts
Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976.
List of Keywords
Impleadment in writ petition; Impleadment in writ proceedings;
Necessary party; Proper party; Person directly affected by interim
order; Not an original party to the principal challenge; Not a party
in writ petition; Parent writ; Scope and operation of an interim
order; Clarification/modification of interim order; Impleadment
declined; Interim order had civil consequences; Interim order
had direct and immediate consequences; Impleadment allowed;
Remedy.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 4318-4319
of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2026 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CM Nos. 2967 and 2968
of 2026.
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 447
M/s Chopra Hotels Private Limited v. Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner(s):
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Maninder Singh, Nikhil Goel, Sr. Advs., Mahesh
Agarwal, Swapnil Gupta, Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Harshit Gupta,
Devansh Srivastava, E. C. Agrawala, Varun Chugh, Shagun
Chugh, Ms. Khyati Sharma, Sumit Kumar Gautam, Divya Jot Singh,
Shubham Singh Chauhan.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Sr. Adv. /Adv. General , Shadan Farasat,
Balbir Singh, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Advs., Karan Sharma,
Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Naman
Tandon, Prakhar Singh, Charu Trivedi, Siddhant Sharma, Rajat
Bharadwaj, Ferry Sofat.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals arise from the judgment and order dated
26.02.2026 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh1 in C.M. No. 2967-CWP-2026 and C.M. No. 2968-CWP-
2026 in CWP No. 38742 of 2025, whereby the High Court dismissed
the applications filed by the Appellant seeking impleadment in the
writ proceedings as well as clarification / modification of the interim
order dated 24.12.2025 passed in the said writ petition.
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows:
3.1. The Appellant is the owner of property bearing No. B-XIII-294,
Police Lines Road, Jalandhar. Change of land use from
residential to commercial was granted in respect of the
said property on 09.10.2006. Thereafter, on 28.04.2011, the
Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar approved the building plan
for construction of a hotel on the said property. On 31.07.2024,
1 High Court
448 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the Appellant applied for issuance of a completion certificate.
During that process, a discrepancy relating to the front setback
was pointed out. According to the Appellant, the discrepancy
arose because the plot on site was trapezium shaped, whereas
the sanctioned plan depicted it as rectangular.
3.2. On 15.12.2025, the State of Punjab notified the Punjab Unified
Building Rules, 20252. According to the Appellant, under the 2025
Rules the minimum front setback requirement for commercial
buildings stood reduced to 10 per cent, and the building of the
Appellant, which is stated to maintain a front setback of 15.37
per cent, became compliant with the said regime. The 2025
Rules were thereafter challenged before the High Court in
CWP No. 38742 of 2025. By interim order dated 24.12.2025,
the High Court directed that those provisions of the notification
dated 15.12.2025 which were inconsistent with the earlier Rules
and Regulations be kept in abeyance. The High Court further
directed that violations which were qualified as violations under
the previous Rules and Regulations be not regularized.
3.3. According to the Appellant, the interim order dated 24.12.2025
thereafter came to be relied upon by the municipal authorities
while proceeding against its building. On 05.02.2026, the
premises on the said property were sealed. On 06.02.2026,
a demolition order was issued by the Municipal Corporation,
Jalandhar. The Appellant challenged the said action by filing
CWP No. 4023 of 2026 before the High Court. By order dated
10.02.2026, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition
and relegated the Appellant to the statutory remedy available
under Section 269 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act,
19763. The Appellant then carried the matter in LPA No. 415 of
2026. By order dated 12.02.2026, the Division Bench disposed
of the appeal while relegating the Appellant to the statutory
remedy before the competent appellate forum and granted
limited protection against precipitative action till 16.02.2026
or till the filing of the appropriate plea, whichever was
earlier.
2 2025 Rules
3 1976 Act
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 449
M/s Chopra Hotels Private Limited v. Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors.
3.4. On 12.02.2026, the Appellant submitted a representation to the
Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar asserting that the property
stood on commercial land, that the building maintained a front
setback of 15.37 per cent, and that it was compliant with the
2025 Rules. On 13.02.2026, the Appellant also submitted
revised building plans seeking approval for use of the building
as a commercial complex in terms of the 2025 Rules. The said
requests came to be rejected by orders dated 13.02.2026 and
14.02.2026, which were communicated on 16.02.2026.
3.5. The Appellant also preferred an appeal under Section 269 of
the 1976 Act before the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar
against the demolition order dated 06.02.2026. By order
dated 17.02.2026, notice was issued in the appeal, but interim
protection was declined. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant
approached the High Court by filing CR No. 1728 of 2026. By
order dated 18.02.2026, the High Court directed that till the
decision of the statutory appeal no coercive action shall be
taken against the Appellant in the matter.
3.6. Since the Appellant’s case was that the interim order dated
24.12.2025 passed in CWP No. 38742 of 2025 was being
relied upon to deny to it the benefit of the 2025 Rules, the
Appellant moved two applications in the said writ petition on
20.02.2026. By the first application, being C.M. No. 2967-CWP-
2026, the Appellant sought impleadment in the writ petition. By
the second application, being C.M. No. 2968-CWP-2026, the
Appellant sought clarification/modification of the interim order
dated 24.12.2025. It is also material to note that on 05.02.2026,
the High Court had allowed an impleadment application filed
by one KCB Infra LLP in the said writ petition.
3.7. The aforesaid applications filed by the Appellant in CWP No.
38742 of 2025 came to be dismissed by the High Court by the
impugned order dated 26.02.2026. The High Court observed
that the Appellant had no lis before that Court, that it was at
liberty to agitate its grievance before the proper forum, and that
it was not a necessary party to the case. On that reasoning,
the application for impleadment was dismissed and the
prayer for clarification of the order dated 24.12.2025 was also
declined.
450 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
3.8. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2026, the Appellant
approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Nos. 9321-9322 of 2026, out of which the present appeals
arise. The matter was listed on 13.03.2026. On that date,
this Court issued notice, and further directed that until further
orders, the further proceedings in question pending before
the High Court shall remain stayed.
3.9. In the meantime, since the Appellant’s request for treatment
of the building as a commercial building under the 2025
Rules had been rejected, the Appellant filed CWP No. 5839
of 2026 before the High Court assailing the rejection of its
representation and the refusal to consider the revised building
plan under the 2025 Rules. By order dated 16.03.2026,
the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition.
While doing so, the learned Single Judge held that once the
operation of the 2025 Rules had been ordered to be kept in
abeyance by the Division Bench by order dated 24.12.2025
passed in CWP No. 38742 of 2025, there was no occasion at
that stage for consideration of the revised building plan dated
13.02.2026 submitted by the Appellant in accordance with the
2025 Rules seeking change of usage from a hotel building to
a commercial building.
3.10. The Appellant assailed the order dated 16.03.2026 by filing
LPA No. 760 of 2026 before the High Court. The later record
shows that the said Letters Patent Appeal was listed before
the Division Bench and stood adjourned to 24.03.2026.
3.11. Insofar as the statutory appeal under Section 269 of the 1976
Act is concerned, the said appeal came to be dismissed by
the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar on 17.03.2026. The
Appellant then approached the High Court by filing CR No.
2579 of 2026. In the proceedings of the said revision petition,
the High Court recorded on 17.03.2026 that the order of the
appellate court had been pronounced at 05:00 PM and that
demolition had commenced at 05:30 PM. The High Court further
recorded the statement of the learned Advocate General, on
instructions from the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,
Jalandhar, that the demolition would be stopped immediately
to await the hearing of the revision petition on the next day.
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 451
M/s Chopra Hotels Private Limited v. Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors.
The High Court made it clear that the State would remain
bound by the said statement and that any demolition after
10:10 PM on 17.03.2026 would be in violation of its order
passed on the same date.
3.12. On 18.03.2026, the High Court in CR No. 2579 of 2026
observed that the question of the Appellant’s impleadment in
the writ petition challenging the 2025 Rules rested upon its
right to be considered under the 2025 Rules. The High Court
further observed that the issue with respect to the operation
of the 2025 Rules to the building in question, as decided by
the learned Single Judge, was the subject matter of challenge
in the intra court appeal. On that basis, the High Court held
that the revision petition required adjudication only after
the rights of the Appellant to be considered under the 2025
Rules had been determined. The High Court also recorded
the submission of the learned Advocate General that no
demolition shall be carried out till the intra court appeal, i.e.,
LPA No. 760 of 2026 is finally decided. Thereafter, the High
Court ordered CR No. 2579 of 2026 to be listed along with
LPA No. 760 of 2026.
3.13. On 24.03.2026, LPA No. 760 of 2026 and CR No. 2579 of
2026 were taken up together by the High Court. On that
date, a request for adjournment was made on behalf of the
Appellant. The High Court accepted the said request, though
opposing submissions were advanced on behalf of the State,
and adjourned both matters to 01.04.2026. The High Court
also recorded the submission of the learned Advocate General,
Punjab that the statement recorded in CR No. 2579 of 2026
in the order dated 18.03.2026 would operate only till the next
date of hearing 01.04.2026, as he had specific instructions
not to continue with such statement in relation to demolition
of the property in question.
3.14. Meanwhile, the Appellant filed an interlocutory application,
being I.A. No. 90210 of 2026, for directions before this Court
placing on record the subsequent developments, including
the dismissal of CWP No. 5839 of 2026, the filing of LPA
No. 760 of 2026, the dismissal of the statutory appeal, and
the later proceedings in CR No. 2579 of 2026. By the said
452 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
application, the Appellant prayed that CWP No. 38742 of 2025
and LPA No. 760 of 2026 pending before the High Court be
taken up together after disposal of the present matter and that
the hearing of LPA No. 760 of 2026 be deferred to await the
outcome of the present proceedings before this Court.
4. It is in the backdrop of this sequence of proceedings, namely the
interim order dated 24.12.2025 in CWP No. 38742 of 2025, the
rejection of the Appellant’s request to avail the benefit of the 2025
Rules, the dismissal of CWP No. 5839 of 2026, the pendency of LPA
No. 760 of 2026, the later proceedings in CR No. 2579 of 2026 arising
out of the demolition order, the orders dated 17.03.2026, 18.03.2026
and 24.03.2026 passed by the High Court in the said matters, and
the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by this Court, that the present
appeals fall for consideration. On 01.04.2026 while reserving orders,
this Court had passed the following order:
“We have heard learned senior counsel of the parties.
Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned senior counsel appearing
for the State of Punjab, has made a statement that no
demolition will take place till this Court passes the orders.
Orders reserved.”
List the matters on 08.04.2026 for delivery of orders.”
5. We have heard Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the
Appellant and Mr. Shadan Farasat, Mr. Gopal Shankarnarayanan
and Mr. Balbir Singh, learned senior counsels for the Respondents.
6. Having perused the submissions advanced by the parties and the
material on record, we are of the view that the controversy in the
present appeals is limited, though the subsequent developments
are relevant for moulding the relief. The present appeals arise from
the order dated 26.02.2026, whereby the High Court declined the
prayer of the Appellant to be impleaded in CWP No. 38742 of 2025
and also declined the prayer for clarification / modification of the
interim order dated 24.12.2025. The question that therefore falls for
consideration is whether the High Court was justified in holding that
the Appellant had no lis before it and was not entitled to be heard
in the said proceedings, and, if not, what consequential directions
ought to follow in relation to the Appellant’s participation in CWP
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 453
M/s Chopra Hotels Private Limited v. Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors.
No. 38742 of 2025 and the further course to be adopted in respect
of LPA No. 760 of 2026 and CR No. 2579 of 2026.
7. The principles governing impleadment are well settled. Though
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not to
be controlled by the technicalities of pleadings as in an ordinary civil
suit, the principles underlying Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 continue to furnish sound guidance. In Mumbai
International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention
Centre and Hotels Private Limited4, this Court explained the
distinction between a necessary party and a proper party. A necessary
party is one without whom no effective order can be passed. A
proper party is one whose presence enables the Court to completely,
effectively and adequately adjudicate upon the questions involved.
In writ proceedings, where the Court is called upon to interpret the
scope and operation of an interim order already passed by it, a
person who is shown to be directly and demonstrably affected by
that order cannot be shut out merely because such person was not
an original party to the principal challenge.
8. Tested on the aforesaid principles, we are unable to sustain the
view taken by the High Court that the Appellant had no lis before it.
The record before us shows that the interim order dated 24.12.2025
in CWP No. 38742 of 2025 did not remain confined to an abstract
challenge to the 2025 Rules. The said order was in fact relied upon by
the municipal authorities while dealing with the case of the Appellant.
The representations and revised plans submitted by the Appellant for
availing the benefit of the 2025 Rules came to be rejected on the footing
that the provisions of the 2025 Rules stood kept in abeyance by the
order dated 24.12.2025. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing
CWP No. 5839 of 2026 on 16.03.2026, also proceeded on the same
basis and expressly held that, since the operation of the 2025 Rules
had been kept in abeyance by the Division Bench in CWP No. 38742
of 2025, there was no occasion to consider the revised building plan
dated 13.02.2026 submitted by the Appellant in accordance with
the 2025 Rules. The subsequent proceedings therefore place the
matter beyond doubt that the order dated 24.12.2025 had direct and
immediate consequences for the Appellant.
4 (2010) 7 SCC 417.
454 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
9. Once that position emerges from the record, the conclusion that
the Appellant had no lis before the High Court cannot be accepted.
The Appellant may not have been an original party to the broader
challenge laid in CWP No. 38742 of 2025. It may also be that no
final determination on the merits of the 2025 Rules was called for
at the instance of the Appellant in those proceedings. Yet, when the
Appellant demonstrated that the interim order passed in the said
writ petition was being invoked to its detriment and was materially
affecting the treatment of its property by the authorities, the Appellant
could not be regarded as a stranger to the controversy. At the very
least, the Appellant was a proper party whose presence would
enable the High Court to deal in a fuller and fairer manner with the
consequences of its own interim order. It is also of some significance
that the High Court had earlier permitted impleadment of another
party in the same writ petition. That circumstance shows that the
proceedings were not viewed by the High Court itself as impervious
to the participation of persons other than the original parties, where
the facts so warranted.
10. We are equally of the view that the manner in which the prayer for
clarification/modification was rejected cannot be sustained. Once the
High Court was shown that its interim order dated 24.12.2025 was
being employed by the authorities in relation to the Appellant’s building,
the request could not have been disposed of merely by observing that
the Appellant was free to pursue another remedy. The grievance of
the Appellant was not detached from the writ proceedings. It arose
precisely from the operation attributed by the authorities and by the
learned Single Judge to the order dated 24.12.2025 passed in CWP
No. 38742 of 2025. Whether the Appellant was ultimately entitled
to the benefit of the 2025 Rules was, no doubt, a matter requiring
adjudication in appropriate proceedings. But the High Court could
not, while declining impleadment, altogether deny to the Appellant
an opportunity of being heard in the very proceedings from which
the prejudice was asserted to arise.
11. At the same time, we do not consider it either necessary or appropriate
in the present appeals to ourselves pronounce upon the exact ambit
of the interim order dated 24.12.2025 or upon the applicability of the
2025 Rules to the Appellant’s building. Any such pronouncement
would travel beyond the contours of the present appeals and trench
upon issues which arise in the parent writ proceedings as well as
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 455
M/s Chopra Hotels Private Limited v. Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors.
in the independent proceedings instituted by the Appellant. The
proper course, in our view, is to set right the procedural exclusion
occasioned to the Appellant and to leave all substantive questions
open for consideration by the High Court in the proceedings where
they properly arise.
12. This brings us to the subsequent developments, particularly LPA No.
760 of 2026 and CR No. 2579 of 2026. The order dated 16.03.2026
passed in CWP No. 5839 of 2026 makes it clear that the learned
Single Judge declined relief to the Appellant on the ground that the
operation of the 2025 Rules had already been kept in abeyance by
the Division Bench order dated 24.12.2025 passed in CWP No. 38742
of 2025. The orders dated 18.03.2026 and 24.03.2026 further show
that the question regarding the Appellant’s right to be considered
under the 2025 Rules, the maintainability of its claim to be heard in
the writ proceedings, the challenge pending in LPA No. 760 of 2026,
and the revision proceedings arising from the demolition action were
all being treated as closely interlinked. It cannot therefore be denied
that there is a clear and substantial overlap between the present
appeals, the proceedings in CWP No. 38742 of 2025, LPA No. 760
of 2026, and CR No. 2579 of 2026.
13. At the same time, overlap is not the same thing as identity. The
present appeals arise out of the order dated 26.02.2026 refusing
impleadment and refusing clarification/modification in CWP No.
38742 of 2025. LPA No. 760 of 2026 arises out of the dismissal
of CWP No. 5839 of 2026, which was an independent writ petition
instituted by the Appellant against the rejection of its representation
and revised plans. CR No. 2579 of 2026, in turn, arises out of the
dismissal of the statutory appeal under Section 269 of the 1976
Act. Both the intra court appeal and the civil revision are thus
separate proceedings arising from distinct causes, even though
each is affected, in part, by the effect attributed to the order dated
24.12.2025. The mere circumstance that one proceeding may furnish
part of the legal backdrop of another does not, by itself, require that
the latter proceedings be kept in abeyance until the former attains
finality. Unless there is a statutory interdict, or unless the nature of
the controversy is such that the later proceeding cannot at all be
meaningfully adjudicated without first deciding the former, the Court
must be slow to render otherwise maintainable remedies dormant
for an indefinite period.
456 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
14. We find no such compelling reason in the present case to direct
that LPA No. 760 of 2026 and CR No. 2579 of 2026 should remain
suspended until the final disposal of the broader challenge in CWP No.
38742 of 2025. The High Court, while hearing the said proceedings,
would remain fully competent to examine the correctness of the
orders under challenge therein in the light of the pleadings before it,
the rejection orders and demolition proceedings impugned therein,
the effect of the order dated 24.12.2025, and any other contention
available to the parties in law. The fact that the High Court itself has
been taking up the said matters together also indicates that their
joint hearing would conduce to orderly and effective adjudication. We
may also note that one of the principal submissions urged before
us on behalf of the Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shadan Farasat for
the Respondents was that, even assuming the 2025 Rules were to
apply, and the challenge to the same would fail, the Appellant would
still not be entitled to succeed since, according to the Respondents,
the building of the Appellant does not conform even to that regime.
We express no opinion whatsoever on the correctness of that
submission. However, the very nature of that submission shows that
the Respondents themselves do not place the matter on the footing
that the fate of CWP No. 38742 of 2025 is inseparably dependent
upon the outcome of LPA No. 760 of 2026 or CR No. 2579 of 2026.
In other words, the pendency of the parent writ does not denude the
High Court of jurisdiction to take up and decide LPA No. 760 of 2026
and CR No. 2579 of 2026. Nor does it follow that such adjudication
would necessarily prejudice the determination in the parent writ, so
long as the limits of each proceeding are kept in view.
15. There is another aspect of the matter. To require the Appellant to
wait for the final decision in CWP No. 38742 of 2025 before LPA No.
760 of 2026 and CR No. 2579 of 2026 can even be heard would, in
effect, postpone adjudication of the Appellant’s independent remedies
to an uncertain stage. That course would not be justified on the
facts before us. The orders under challenge in those proceedings
have immediate civil consequences for the Appellant because they
concern, on the one hand, the refusal to consider the Appellant’s
case under the 2025 Rules and, on the other hand, the legality and
continuance of the demolition action. If such proceedings are kept
pending merely because a broader challenge to the 2025 Rules is
also pending, the result may well be to make the available remedies
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 457
M/s Chopra Hotels Private Limited v. Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors.
illusory in practical terms. Courts must ordinarily lean in favour of
preserving, and not stultifying, a remedy otherwise available in law,
particularly where the controversy is still live and the consequences
asserted by the party are continuing.
16. We are therefore of the view that the proper balance is to recognize
the interconnection of the proceedings without collapsing them into
one another. The Appellant cannot be denied participation in CWP
No. 38742 of 2025 when the order passed therein has already
produced demonstrable civil consequences for it. At the same time,
it is neither necessary nor proper to hold that LPA No. 760 of 2026
and CR No. 2579 of 2026 must await the final adjudication of the
entire challenge in the parent writ. Equally, there is no reason why
CWP No. 38742 of 2025 itself should be held back merely because
the Appellant has independently instituted the said proceedings.
The ends of justice would be met by permitting the Appellant to be
impleaded in CWP No. 38742 of 2025, by permitting the High Court
to proceed with CWP No. 38742 of 2025 independently of LPA No.
760 of 2026 and CR No. 2579 of 2026, by directing that the said
matters be taken up together, and by directing that they be decided
independently of CWP No. 38742 of 2025 on their own merits and
in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the reasons contained in
the impugned order dated 26.02.2026.
17. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
18. The judgment and order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the High Court
in C.M. No. 2967-CWP-2026 and C.M. No. 2968-CWP-2026 in CWP
No. 38742 of 2025 is set aside. C.M. No. 2967-CWP-2026 filed by
the Appellant for impleadment in CWP No. 38742 of 2025 shall stand
allowed. The Appellant shall be impleaded as a party respondent in
CWP No. 38742 of 2025. In view of the order passed herein there
is no need to pass any specific order in C.M. No. 2968-CWP-2026.
The same stands disposed off.
19. The High Court shall be at liberty to proceed with CWP No. 38742
of 2025 independently of LPA No. 760 of 2026 and CR No. 2579
of 2026.
20. LPA No. 760 of 2026 and CR No. 2579 of 2026 shall be heard
together and disposed of by the High Court independently of CWP
No. 38742 of 2025, on their own merits and in accordance with law.
458 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
21. The parties shall maintain status quo with respect to the property
in question until the disposal of LPA No. 760 of 2026 and CR No.
2579 of 2026 by the High Court.
22. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the rival claims in CWP No. 38742 of 2025, LPA No. 760
of 2026, CR No. 2579 of 2026, or any other proceedings arising out
of the demolition action or the applicability of the 2025 Rules to the
building of the Appellant. All questions in that regard are kept open.
23. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Impleadment in writ petition"Sign in to search