IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.02.2026 M/s Jones Lang Lasalle Building Operations Pvt. Ltd.

......Petitioner Versus Barnala Builders and Property Consultants ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. Dibya Nishant, Advocate and Mr. Shashikant Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jatin Bansal, Advocate for the respondent.

*****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)

CM-22601-CII-2025

1. The present application has been filed seeking permission to place on record the complete copy of Annexure P-2, namely, the original Management Service Agreement dated 28.07.2017.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present application has been filed in pursuance of the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by this Court, whereby an opportunity was granted to the petitioner to place on record the complete copy of Annexure P-2, as the earlier Annexure P-2 filed along with the petition was an incomplete document. The petitioner was directed to file the aforesaid document within a period of seven working days. He submitted that an application for placing on record Annexure P-2 was filed in the Registry of this Court by way of e- filing on 30.10.2025 and a photocopy thereof has been supplied to this court. The aforesaid photocopy of the e-filing is taken on record.

3. He further submitted that the original application was filed within a period of seven working days as directed by the Court, however, due to certain objections raised by the Registry, the petitioner has filed the present fresh application. Although the present application is technically beyond the period granted by the aforesaid order but the original filing was made within the prescribed time. He submitted that the present document i.e. Annexure P-2, is the original document which is in the nature of the Management Service Agreement, duly signed by both the parties and it also contains an arbitration clause i.e. Clause No. 16.1. Therefore he prayed that the same may be permitted to be taken on record.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has objected to the same and submitted that the aforesaid document cannot be permitted to be taken on record as it was filed beyond the period of seven days. He submitted that although an application had earlier been filed on 30.10.2025, the petitioner did not pursue the aforesaid application for placing the document on record and thereafter filed a fresh application after a period of seven days and only seven working days had been afforded to him vide order dated 15.10.2025 and on this ground the application is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that even when the earlier application dated 30.10.2025 was filed, no copy thereof was supplied to the respondent and in respect of which a complaint has already been made to the Registry of this Court which is stated to be pending. Learned counsel also objected that the document sought to be taken on record is not Annexure P-2.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by this Court, whereby the petitioner was permitted to file the complete copy of Annexure P-2 within seven working days, this Court finds that the petitioner had filed the said document on 30.10.2025 which falls within seven working days as there were intervening holidays in this Court. Although the application was not listed as it was not passed by the Registry, the petitioner thereafter filed the present application which is now under consideration. This Court is of the considered view that it would be too hyper-technical to reject the prayer of the petitioner for placing on record the aforesaid Annexure P-2 on the ground that it was beyond the period of seven working days, when in fact the document had been filed within the stipulated period. The factum of filing on 30.10.2025 has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondent, though it is contended that the