In a significant ruling delivered on 08 April 2026, the Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals filed by M/s Chopra Hotels Private Limited and set aside the order dated 26 February 2026 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had declined the Appellant’s applications for impleadment and for clarification/modification of the interim order dated 24 December 2025 passed in CWP No. 38742 of 2025. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that when an interim order passed in a writ petition is shown to have direct and demonstrable civil consequences for a third party, that party cannot be treated as a stranger and must be permitted to participate in the proceedings so that the High Court can deal with the matter in a fuller and fairer manner.

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 on 09 October 2006 and the building plan for a hotel was approved on 28 April 2011. On 31 July 2024, the Appellant applied for a completion certificate. During scrutiny, a discrepancy relating to the front setback was noticed, which, according to the Appellant, arose because the plot on site is trapezium shaped while the sanctioned plan depicted it as rectangular. On 15 December 2025, the State of Punjab notified the Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025. Under the 2025 Rules, the minimum front setback requirement for commercial buildings was reduced to 10 per cent. The Appellant claimed that its building, with a front setback of 15.37 per cent, became compliant with the new regime.

The 2025 Rules were challenged in CWP No. 38742 of 2025 before the High Court. By interim order dated 24 December 2025, the High Court directed that provisions of the notification dated 15 December 2025 which were inconsistent with the earlier Rules and Regulations be kept in abeyance and that violations qualified as such under the previous regime be not regularised. The Appellant asserted that this interim order came to be relied upon by the municipal authorities while dealing with its building. On 05 February 2026, the premises were sealed and on 06 February 2026 a demolition order was issued. The Appellant challenged these actions by filing CWP No. 4023 of 2026, which was dismissed by the Single Judge relegating the Appellant to the statutory remedy under Section 269 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. The Appellant carried the matter in LPA No. 415 of 2026, which was disposed of by the Division Bench on 12 February 2026 while granting limited protection against precipitative action.

Thereafter, on 12 February 2026, the Appellant submitted a representation asserting that its property stood on commercial land and that the building was compliant with the 2025 Rules. Revised building plans were also submitted on 13 February 2026. These requests were rejected by orders dated 13 and 14 February 2026, which were communicated on 16 February 2026. The Appellant preferred a statutory appeal under Section 269 of the 1976 Act against the demolition order, which was dismissed on 17 March 2026. The Appellant then filed CR No. 2579 of 2026 before the High Court. Meanwhile, on 20 February 2026, the Appellant moved two applications in CWP No. 38742 of 2025 seeking impleadment and clarification/modification of the interim order dated 24 December 2025.

The High Court, by the impugned order dated 26 February 2026, dismissed both applications holding that the Appellant had no lis before it and was not a necessary party. Aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 9321-9322 of 2026. On 13 March 2026, the Supreme Court issued notice and stayed further proceedings before the High Court.

After hearing 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, the Supreme Court observed that the principles governing impleadment, though derived from Order I Rule 10 CPC, continue to furnish sound guidance even in writ proceedings. A necessary party is one without whom no effective order can be passed, while a proper party is one whose presence enables the Court to adjudicate the questions involved completely, effectively and adequately. 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.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in declining impleadment. The record clearly showed that the interim order dated 24 December 2025 was being relied upon by the municipal authorities while dealing with the Appellant’s building. The representations and revised plans submitted by the Appellant for availing the benefit of the 2025 Rules were rejected on the footing that the provisions of the 2025 Rules stood kept in abeyance by the order dated 24 December 2025. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing CWP No. 5839 of 2026, also proceeded on the same basis. In these circumstances, 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.

The Supreme Court further held that the manner in which the prayer for clarification/modification was rejected could not be sustained. Once it was shown that the interim order was being employed to the detriment of the Appellant, 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 December 2025.

The Supreme Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the exact ambit of the interim order dated 24 December 2025 or on the applicability of the 2025 Rules to the Appellant’s building, as any such pronouncement would travel beyond the contours of the present appeals. All substantive questions were left open for consideration by the High Court in the proceedings where they properly arise.

In view of the substantial overlap between the present appeals, CWP No. 38742 of 2025, LPA No. 760 of 2026 and CR No. 2579 of 2026, the Supreme Court directed that the Appellant be impleaded as a party respondent in CWP No. 38742 of 2025. The High Court was directed to proceed with CWP No. 38742 of 2025 independently of LPA No. 760 of 2026 and CR No. 2579 of 2026. At the same time, LPA No. 760 of 2026 and CR No. 2579 of 2026 were directed to be heard together and disposed of independently of CWP No. 38742 of 2025, on their own merits and in accordance with law. The parties were directed to 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. It was made clear that the Supreme Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims in any of the proceedings.

Case Title: M/s Chopra Hotels Private Limited v. Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 335
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Click HERE for full judgment.