IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :-09.09.2025 Pronounced on :19.09.2025 Vineet Kumar …. Petitioner Versus M/s TDI Infrastructure Private Limited and Others ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Akash Mehta, Advocate for caveators/respondent Nos.1 and 2.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, whereby the order dated 01.04.2025 of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat granting the petitioner’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was reversed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, along with defendant No.4, claim to be co-sharers in joint possession of the suit land in equal shares as per Jamabandi for the year 2014-15. Though the Jamabandi records the land as Chahi, the actual position is otherwise. Defendant No.4, without seeking partition of the suit land by metes and bounds, obtained a licence from the Town and Country Planning Department, Government of Haryana, for setting up a Group Housing Colony over the suit land along with adjoining land, and was further granted an occupation certificate vide letter dated 15.12.2017 in respect of construction raised on land. It is alleged that defendants No.4 and 5, taking undue advantage of the simplicity of the plaintiffs, procured their signatures on certain papers and documents and got the site plan of the entire project sanctioned, which also included the plaintiffs’ share in the suit land. On the basis of the approved site plan, defendant No.4 carved out plots in the suit land and adjoining land and allotted the same to various purchasers. The plaintiffs came to know of this about 8–9 months prior to the institution of the suit, when the allottees, along with property dealers, visited the site for inspection of the plots. According to the plaintiffs, defendants No.4 and 5 have committed fraud not only upon them but also upon the prospective buyers.

2.1. Upon objection being raised by the plaintiffs, defendants No.4 and 5 assured them that no plots would be sold without partition of the suit land. However, in collusion with defendants No.2 and 3, they instituted partition proceedings before the Court of defendant No.2 and once again obtained the plaintiffs’ signatures on certain documents to mark their presence before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rai. It is alleged that defendants No.2 and 3, without following due procedure and despite lacking jurisdiction—since the suit land, being Gair Mumkin, had lost its agricultural character (Chahi), proceeded with partition in an arbitrary manner. These material facts were deliberately suppressed while seeking partition. By continuing with the proceedings, defendant No.2 has exceeded his jurisdiction. The plaintiffs contend that if the partition proceedings are allowed to continue, they would suffer irreparable loss incapable of compensation. Accordingly, along with the suit, the plaintiffs moved an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking an injunction to restrain the defendants from proceeding further with the partition or interfering in possession of plaintiff or creating any third party rights over suit property.

3 Defendants No.1 to 3 contested the suit as well as the injunction application, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, limitation, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, estoppel, concealment of material facts, and absence of cause of action. On merits, it was pleaded that the suit land had already been legally partitioned by defendant No.1, with Mutation N