IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.11.2025 M/s Engineers Mech (India) Pvt. Ltd. and another …Petitioners V/s Mrs. Usha Gupta and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anupam Mathur, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Avichal Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Gurugram, vide which application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) by the respondent-plaintiff (Usha Gupta) was allowed. 2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a civil suit (Annexure P-1) was instituted by the respondent-plaintiff (Smt. Usha Gupta) for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioners-defendants (M/s Engineers Mech (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others). The case set up was that the respondent-plaintiff was owner in possession of land (fully described in the plaint) measuring 7 kanals 8 marlas (1/3^rd share of land measuring 22 kanals 3 marlas), situated within the revenue estate of Village Harsaru, District Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”) purchased by the respondent-plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated

02.05.2007 (Annexure P-2).

2.1 Upon an application having been moved by the respondent- plaintiff, the land was demarcated by the competent authority and it was found that the petitioners-defendants had encroached upon land measuring 3 kanals 2 marlas owned by the respondent-plaintiff and had erected a wall on the said land.

2.2 Upon demarcation having been carried out, the respondent- plaintiff requested the petitioners-defendants to remove the encroachment but they kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. Eventually, legal notice dated 13.10.2018 was issued, which also did not yield any result except for a formal reply denying the factum of encroachment.

2.3. Under the circumstances, the suit was filed seeking a declaration as regards ownership and mandatory injunction to the petitioners-defendants to remove the encroachment. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also sought.

2.4 The suit was opposed by the petitioners-defendants and the factum of encroachment was denied. It was averred that the demarcation report was not a legal and valid report. Vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurugram, the suit was dismissed.

2.5 It was held that the alleged encroachment, if any, was existing even prior to the purchase of the land by the respondent-plaintiff and, therefore, it would be the predecessor/vendor of the plaintiff, who would have a cause of action, if any, to file a suit for possession. It was also held that the only remedy that the respondent-plaintiff had was to sue her vendor for refund of the sale consideration or for damages. It was held that the demarcation had not been conducted in accordance with instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner. It was further held that the respondent-plaintiff could have moved an application during the pendency of the suit to appoint Local Commissioner for the purpose of demarcation.

2.6 Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, an appeal was preferred by the respondent-plaintiff. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC (Annexure P-5) was moved by the respondent- plaintiff seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner for the purpose of demarcation of the suit land.

2.7 The said application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P- 6). By way of the impugned order dated 21.05.2025, the said application was allowed, leading to filing of the present revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4