IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (123 Date of Decision:-12.11.2025 HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN THOUGH ESTATE OFFICER -II … Petitioner Versus M/S LEKH BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ... Respondent ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aashish Chopra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rupa Pathania, Advocate, Mr. Shikhar Sarin, Advocate, Mr. Abhinav Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Kundu, Advocate and Ms. Radhika Sharma, Advocate for caveator/respondent.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present revision petition is filed under the supervisory jurisdiction of this High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 01.10.2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Gurugram, whereby an application under Order 41, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short to be referred as ‘CPC)’ was allowed, resulting in the stay of execution of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge.

1.1. The petitioner seeks partial modification and/or annulment of the said order to the extent it has been made conditional and burdensome, contending that the imposition of onerous and unreasonable conditions is contrary to the principles of law and causes undue hardship to the petitioner. It is respectfully submitted that the said conditions, if allowed to operate, would defeat the very purpose of the stay and thwart the petitioner’s legitimate rights, thereby warranting intervention under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner, therefore, seeks that this Court may be pleased to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to partially modify or set aside the impugned order insofar as it imposes unjust, unreasonable, and inequitable conditions, thereby ensuring justice and equity.

2. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2025, along with an application under Order 41, Rule 5 of the CPC seeking a stay of the operation of the said judgment and decree. The learned District Judge, Gurugram, while admitting the appeal for hearing, has, by order dated 01.10.2025, granted an interim stay of the impugned judgment and decree. However, the stay was made subject to certain conditions, which are onerous, unreasonable, and inequitable, causing undue hardship to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, respectfully contends that the said conditions are not justified in law and prays that the impugned order may be set aside or modified to the extent that such burdensome conditions have been imposed, in the interest of justice, equity, and the lawful exercise of judicial discretion.

3. The caveator/respondent has, through its learned counsel, Ms. Rupa Pathania, Advocate, along with the assistance of Senior Advocates, duly entered its appearance in these proceedings before this Court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and, having considered their submissions, have perused the record with utmost care and attention.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the imposition of conditions in the impugned order, while granting a stay on the operation of the judgment and decree under appeal, is unwarranted and legally unsustainable. It has been urged that the conditions so imposed are arbitrary, unreasonable, and excessive, thereby rendering the order vulnerable to judicial interference.

6. It is further submitted that once the learned First Appellate Court had already directed the preservation and maintenance of the suit property pending adjudication of the appeal, the additional condition requiring the petitioner to furnish security equivalent to 25% of the original bid amount is wholly unjustified and contrary to law. Learned counsel ₹

emphasized that the suit property, valued at more than 700 crores, already stands effectively restrained by the prior condition restricting the petitione