2026 INSC 335 C.A. @ SLP (C) NOS. 9321-9322 OF 2026 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS…………………..OF 202 6

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO(S). 9321-9322 OF 2026)

M/S CHOPRA HOTELS

PRIVATE LIMITED …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

HARBINDER SINGH SEKHON & ORS . …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

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 Chandigarh

1 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

1

High Court

C.A. @ SLP (C) NOS. 9321-9322 OF 2026 2

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, 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, 2025

2. 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

2

2025 Rules

C.A. @ SLP (C) NOS. 9321-9322 OF 2026 3

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, 1976

3. 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.

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

1976 Act

C.A. @ SLP (C) NOS. 9321-9322 OF 2026 4

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

C.A. @ SLP (C) NOS. 9321-9322 OF 2026 5

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.

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

C.A. @ SLP (C) NOS. 9321-9322 OF 2026 6

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. 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

C.A. @ SLP (C) NOS. 9321-9322 OF 2026 7

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

C.A. @ SLP (C) NOS. 9321-9322 OF 2026 8

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 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.”

C.A. @ SLP (C) NOS. 9321-9322 OF 2026 9

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 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,

C.A. @ SLP (C) NOS. 9321-9322 OF 2026 10

1908 continue to furnish sound guidance. In Mumbai

International Airport Private Limited v. Regency

Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited

4

, 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

4

(2010) 7 SCC 417.

C.A. @ SLP (C) NOS. 9321-9322 OF 2026 11

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.

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

C.A. @ SLP (C) NOS. 9321-9322 OF 2026 12

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 su ch

pronouncement would travel beyond the contours of the

present appeals and trench upon issues which arise in

the parent writ proceedings as well as in the independent

C.A. @ SLP (C) NOS. 9321-9322 OF 2026 13

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.

C.A. @ SLP (C) NOS. 9321-9322 OF 2026 14

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.

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

C.A. @ SLP (C) NOS. 9321-9322 OF 2026 15

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

C.A. @ SLP (C) NOS. 9321-9322 OF 2026 16

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 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 al ready 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.

C.A. @ SLP (C) NOS. 9321-9322 OF 2026 17

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.

C.A. @ SLP (C) NOS. 9321-9322 OF 2026 18

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.

………………………………..J.

[VIKRAM NATH]

………………………………..J.

[SANDEEP MEHTA]

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 08, 2026