20.08.2025 M/s Ethnic Hotels Private Limited v. M/s Hari Kirpa Infrastructure Private Limited and others
Case Details
CR-3019-2025 (O&M) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3019-2025 (O&M) Reserved on : 25.07.2025 Pronounced on : 20.08.2025 M/s Ethnic Hotels Private Limited ...... Petitioner Versus M/s Hari Kirpa Infrastructure Private Limited and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL (cid:1) *** Argued by : Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate Mr. Minkal Rawal, Advocate Mr. Abhinav Goel, Advocate and Mr. Arjun Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sumeet Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** VIKRAM AGGARWAL , J (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:4) (cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:8) (cid:4) (cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:6) (cid:4) (cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:14) (cid:4) (cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:16) (cid:4) (cid:17)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:10) (cid:4) (cid:18)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3) (cid:4) (cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:22) (cid:4) (cid:12)(cid:15) (cid:4) (cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:24)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:25)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:21)(cid:28)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:18)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:30)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:31) !"(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:16) #$ (cid:4) (cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:4) (cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:8) (cid:4) (cid:12)(cid:15) (cid:4) (cid:23)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:20) (cid:4) %(cid:17)(cid:16)&(cid:3) (cid:4) (cid:29)’(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:10) (cid:4) ((cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:6)"(cid:14) (cid:4) )(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:17)&(cid:10)(cid:9)* (cid:4) (cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:3) (cid:4) +(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:2) (cid:4) (cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:20)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:6) (cid:4) (cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:16) (cid:4) #$(cid:4) (cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:8) (cid:4) ,(cid:12)(cid:27)- (cid:13)(cid:20)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:15) (cid:4) (cid:17)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:10) (cid:4) .(cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:10) (cid:4) - (cid:4) /(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:3) (cid:4) -(cid:25) (cid:4) (cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:16) (cid:17)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:4).(cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:4)0(cid:4)/(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:4)-(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:23)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:31)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:4)-!(cid:25)1(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:4)2(cid:23)(cid:31)(cid:23)3" +(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:12)+(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:27) (cid:21)(cid:29)(cid:5)"(cid:27) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:19)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:3)*(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:6)&(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:12)*(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:8) (cid:29)(cid:18)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:30)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:3) (cid:4) (cid:31) (cid:21)" (cid:4) +(cid:9)(cid:7) (cid:4) (cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:16) (cid:4) #$ (cid:4) (cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:8) (cid:4) ,(cid:12)(cid:27)- (cid:13)(cid:20)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:15) (cid:4) (cid:29)M/s Hari Kirpa MAMTA MALHOTRA 2025.08.21 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh CR-3019-2025 (O&M) (cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) Infrastructure Private Limited"(cid:4)(cid:9)&(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:29)45(cid:7)(cid:4) (cid:4)Ethnic Hotels Private Limited) and proforma respondents No.2 and 3 for declaration and permanent injunction. 2(ii). The petitioner-defendant No.1 was the owner in possession of land measuring 5.3 acres, situated at Village Bilaspur, Tehsil, Manesar, District Gurgaon (Gurugram). A collaboration agreement was executed between the petitioner-defendant No.1 and respondent No.1-plaintiff on 22.08.2008 for development of the said land. Respondent No.1-plaintiff is stated to have paid Rs.1.22 crores to the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 (defendants) apart from other expenses incurred on applying for the licence. 2(iii). However, CLU (Change of Land Use) permission was not granted on account of certain objections which, as per respondent No.1-plaintiff, the petitioner-defendant No.1 had failed to remove. Certain disputes erupted between the parties, as a result of which the suit was instituted. Notably, while the heading of the suit mentions it to be a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, the prayer is for the issuance of a decree of mandatory injunction directing the
Facts
defendant to remove the objections raised by the authorities. Consequential relief of permanent injunction and alternate relief of mandatory injunction directing respondents No.2 and 3 to transfer their 50% shareholding in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff or for recovery of Rs.1,24,21,985/- was also made. 3. The suit was opposed by way of written statement (Annexure P-4). Replication (Annexure P-5) was filed. Issues were framed on 15.07.2016. 4(i). An application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and under Order 6 Rule MAMTA MALHOTRA 2025.08.21 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh CR-3019-2025 (O&M) (cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 17 read with Section 151 CPC (Annexure P-7) came to be filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff in September, 2017. It was averred that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner-defendant No.1 had alienated land measuring 8 kanals 19 marlas out of the suit land in favour of some Mukesh Gupta and Dushyant Gupta vide sale deed dated 28.06.2017. 4(ii). An amendment was also sought in the plaint as regards declaration qua the collaboration agreement, GPA and SPA being valid and subsisting. Accordingly, amendments were sought to be made in the plaint, paragraph No.13- A (insertion of paragraph 13-A in the plaint) and consequential amendments in the prayer clause were sought to be introduced. 5. The application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-8). Alienation of land measuring 8 kanals 19 marlas on 29.06.2017 in favour of Mukesh Gupta and Dushyant Gupta was admitted. The amendment of plaint was opposed so was the impleadment of Mukesh Gupta and Dushyant Gupta. 6. Vide the impugned order dated 04.02.2025, both applications were allowed, leading to the filing of the instant revision petition. 7. 8(i). Learned counsel for the parties were heard.
Legal Reasoning
Property Act’) would be applicable. It was further submitted that it is settled law that subsequent purchasers cannot, as a matter of right, be impleaded in a suit since, they are not privity to the contract between the parties and essentially, no relief is sought against them. 8(iii). As regards the amendment, it was submitted that nowhere in the original suit had the relief of declaration been sought and that by praying for the said relief, the nature of the suit had changed. It was also submitted that the applications remained pending for eight years and allowing them at this stage does not make any sense. Learned counsel referred to the interlocutory orders which have been placed on record and submitted that a perusal of the said orders would show that deliberately, no arguments were addressed on the applications. 8(iv).
Arguments
It was strenuously urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable. It was submitted that two applications, the first being an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the second being an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC were decided together which itself makes the impugned order unsustainable. 8(ii). As regards the impleadment of parties pursuant to the application MAMTA MALHOTRA 2025.08.21 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh CR-3019-2025 (O&M) (cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC having been allowed, it was submitted that the subsequent purchasers had no right to be impleaded as parties and that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Transfer of
Decision
It was also contended that the impugned order is also completely non- speaking as, no reasons, whatsoever were detailed while allowing the applications. It was submitted that under the circumstances, the matter deserves to be remitted to the trial Court for a decision afresh on the applications. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments of Supreme Court of India in the cases of H.Anjanappa & Ors. versus A.Prabhakar & Ors. 2025 AIR SC 924 (Law Finder Doc Id # 2688345), Kasturi versus Iyyamperumal & Ors. 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 690 (Law Finder Doc Id # 82744), the judgments of Coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Satnam Singh versus Jasvir MAMTA MALHOTRA 2025.08.21 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh CR-3019-2025 (O&M) (cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) Kaur and Others 2011 (54) RCR (Civil) 29 (Law Finder Doc Id # 605967), Lachhami Devi versus Pala Singh 1996 (1) RRR 678 (Law Finder Doc Id # 38424), Mehar Singh versus Hardeep Kaur and others 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 82 (Law Finder Doc Id # 79607) and the judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of Sasmita Nayak versus Anita Pattnaik and others 2024 (138) CutLT 945 (Law Finder Doc Id # 2652399). 9(i). Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No.1 defended the impugned order. It was submitted that there is no illegality in the same and, therefore, the same deserves to be upheld. 9(ii) Referring to the application (Annexure P-7), it was submitted that the same was a composite application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, for after impleading the subsequent purchasers i.e. Mukesh Gupta and Dushyant Gupta as defendants, the amendments sought to be made were only consequential. It was submitted that neither is there any bar in moving a composite application nor is there any bar in deciding both applications by way of one order. 9(iii) As regards the subsequent purchasers have been impleaded as defendants, it was submitted that the plaintiff is the dominus litis of the case and it would be for him to decided as to which parties are to be impleaded. It was submitted that the parameters for allowing an application for impleadment of a subsequent purchaser which has been moved by the defendant or by the subsequent purchaser are different from the parameters that are to be adopted in case such an application is moved by the plaintiff. Learned counsel submitted MAMTA MALHOTRA 2025.08.21 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh CR-3019-2025 (O&M) (cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) that even the legal position takes note of this essential difference. 9(iv) As regards amendment, it was submitted that the amendments sought to be made were only consequential upon impleadment of the subsequent purchasers as defendants and, therefore, were essential for the just decision of the case. 9(v) As regards a period of eight years having been spent in decision of the application, it was submitted that no delay had been caused at the instance of the respondent-plaintiff and a perusal of the interlocutory orders would show that the matter had simply been adjourned repeatedly for arguments on the applications. 9(vi) It was also submitted that alienation of a part of the suit property had taken place after the framing of the issues and, therefore, the application for impleadment and amendment could have been moved only thereafter and under no circumstances, could it have been moved prior to the framing of issues. 9(vii) As regards the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is non-speaking, it was submitted that this in itself would not be a ground to remit the matter for a fresh decision. It was submitted that already eight years were spent in deciding the application and if now the matter is remitted, more time would be wasted. It was submitted that this Court can itself appreciate the controversy and take a decision. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments of Supreme Court of India in the cases of Gurmit Singh Bhatia versus Kiran Kant Robinson and others 2019 AIR SC 3577 (Law Finder Doc Id # 1540656), Kasturi versus Iyyamperumal & MAMTA MALHOTRA 2025.08.21 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh CR-3019-2025 (O&M) (cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) Ors. 2005 AIR SC 2813 (Law Finder Doc Id # 82744), Robin Rambjibhai Patel versus Anandibai Rama @ Rajaram Pawar and Ors. 2017 (1) RCR (Civil) 170 (Law Finder Doc Id # 805593), M/s J.N.Real Estate versus Shailendra Pradhan & Ors. in SLP (C) Nos.12205-12206 of 2024, decided 22.04.2025 (Law Finder Doc Id # 2725586), H.Anjanappa & Ors. versus A.Prabhakar & Ors. 2025 AIR SC 924 (Law Finder Doc Id # 2688345), the judgments of Coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Sarup Chand versus Nagar Palika, Sangrur and others 1980 AIR Punjab and Haryana 114 (Law Finder Doc Id # 85195), Pirthi versus Santu and Others 2013 (33) RCR (Civil) 32 (Law Finder Doc Id # 541075) and Kamal Singh versus M/s Raitani Buildcom Pvt. Ltd. and others in Civil Revision No.4566 of 2017, decided on 17.07.2017 (Law Finder Doc Id # 906652). 10(i). I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book. In the case of H.Anjanappa & Ors. versus A.Prabhakar & Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court of India was examining the issue of impleadment of a transferee pendente lite as also the principles governing the grant of leave to appeal. As regards the first question i.e. impleadment of a transferee pendente lite, the Supreme Court of India, after examining the entire law on the subject viz. Nagubai Ammal & Ors. v. B. Shama