IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :20.11.2025 M/S SANJOG LANDBASE LLP ... PETITIONER VERSUS ORCHID GREEN RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION (OGRWA)

AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Munish Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Jagat Vir Singh Dhindsa, Advocate and Mr. Rahul, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Defendant No. 8–petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram, has preferred the present revision petition challenging the dismissal of its application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 CPC.

2. The plaintiff, a registered society under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012, representing the apartment owners of the Orchid Garden Group Housing Complex, Suncity, Sector-54, Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as ‘RWA’), filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.

3. It was the case of the RWA that the land measuring 9.04 acres, consisting of 374 residential apartments, a community centre and other common areas, developed by defendant Nos. 1 to 7, stood conveyed to the apartment owners in its entirety through the Deed of Declaration dated 03.05.2007. According to the RWA, after execution of the said Deed of Declaration, defendant Nos. 1 to 7 had no right, title or interest remaining in the said land. It is the case of the plaintiff RWA that defendant Nos. 1 to 7 have now entered into an agreement to sell 1.20 acres of land, earmarked for a school, in favour of defendant No. 8, in violation of the rights of the apartment owners. The plaintiff claims that the apartment owners are joint owners of the entire 9.04 acres and, accordingly, the society has sought a declaration as well as injunctions restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful enjoyment of the suit property. 4. All the defendants, i.e., defendant Nos. 1 to 7 as well as defendant No. 8–the present petitioner, filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint.

5. The defendants relied on the following five grounds in support of their applications for rejection of the plaint:

(i) Lack of Cause of Action: The plaintiff has failed to show any cause of action. Being an RWA, the plaintiff is neither the owner nor in possession of the 9.04 acres of land and has no right to maintain the suit.

(ii) Bar Under HDRUA Act: The suit is barred under Section 15 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas (HDRUA) Act, and the civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the same.

(iii) Principle of Res Judicata: The suit is barred by the principle of res judicata. An appeal is pending between the parties before the Principal Secretary, Town and Country Planning, bearing Appeal No. 35 of 2016, which also pertains to the present matter, i.e., access to the school site.

(iv) School Site Not Part of Common Area: The school site does not form part of the common area. The site is vested exclusively in the developers, who have the right to sell the same.

(v) Improper Valuation and Court Fee: The plaint has been improperly valued, and the requisite court fee has not been correctly affixed.

6. Learned Trial Court, after considering the respective contentions, decided all five issues raised by the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and the present petitioner. In paragraph 8 of the impugned order, which is reproduced here for ready reference, it was observed as under:

“8.1 Lack of Cause of Action (Order VII Rule 11(a)): Both sets of Defendants contend that the plaint discloses no cause of action, as the Plaintiff, being an RWA, is neither the owner nor in possession of the 9.04 acres and has no right to sue. The plaint avers that the apartment owners, represented by the Plaintiff under the Haryana