M/s Chopra Hotels Private Limited vs Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors.

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 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 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]