M/S CHOPRA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED versus HARBINDER SINGH SEKHON & ORS.

Citation: [2026] 4 S.C.R. 444 · Decided: 08-04-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.