IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2184-2026(O&M)

Date of decision: 09.03.2026 Nitya Mittal ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Mahesh Mittal & Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Ms. Ankita Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff seeking setting aside of the order dated 24.02.2026 (Annexure P1) whereby application filed by the petitioner for pre-poning the next date of hearing from 01.05.2026, has been declined.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 18.08.2025 the petitioner had filed suit for grant of decree of separate possession by way of partition. Along with the suit, the petitioner had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. It is submitted that notice was issued in the suit as well as in the said application vide order dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P2). However, thereafter, the matter has been adjourned by the learned trial Court on one pretext or the other without rendering any decision upon the application for ad interim injunction filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the reasoning recorded by the Ld. Trial Court that the suit is "recently instituted" and that "older matters are pending" cannot be a legally sustainable ground to deny protective consideration in a property dispute. Administrative burden or pendency of older matters cannot override judicial duty to prevent frustration of proceedings.

3. Ld. Counsel contends that refusal to prepone, effectively defeats the pending injunction application and renders the Petitioner remediless till 01.05.2026 (the next date of hearing), during which period the Respondents are already altering the nature of property. This amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Court to preserve the subject matter of litigation. It is submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that in a partition suit involving immovable properties, preservation of property is paramount, and any alienation creates complications including impleadment of third parties and multiplicity of proceedings, thereby prejudicing substantive rights of the Petitioner. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

4. In support of her contentions, learned counsel relies upon judgments of this Court in CR-3204-2025 titled as “Balinder Kaur & Others Vs. Sidharth Singh & Another” decided on 26.05.2025; and CR-6622-2023 titled as “Bhupinderjit Kaur Vs. Punjab State Through Collector Gurdaspur & Others”

decided on 17.11.2023.

5. No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel and perused the record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

6. The chronological sequence of events is as under: –

18.8.2025: The suit of the plaintiff has indeed been recently instituted less than one year ago only on 18.08.2025; along with an application under Order

39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.

5.9.2025: The respondents had filed application dated 05.09.2025 (Annexure P3) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, in which the petitioner had sought time to file reply on 05.09.2025 and the matter was adjourned to 28.10.2025.

28.10.2025:- On 28.10.2025, at joint request, the matter was referred to Mediation; and matter was adjourned to 10.11.2025 to appear before the Mediator; and to 10.12.2025 before the Court.

10.12.2025:- In order dated 10.12.2025 (Annexure 5), it is recorded that the matter could not be settled between the parties and was accordingly adjourned to 12.01.2026 for arguments on the application under Order 7 Rule

11 CPC.

12.01.2026: However, as the learned ACJ was put on casual leave on 12.01.2026, filed was taken up on 09.01.2026 (Annexure P6), on which date none was present.

29.01.2026: Thereafter, the petitioner had filed application dated 29.01.2026 (Annexure P9) for pre-ponement of the matter;