Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 79867

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta, J
Mgf Developments Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Cosmo Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
CR-3862-2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sanjeev Sharma, Amandeep Sigh Talwar, Vikram Vir Sharda, Jugansh Goyal
For the Respondents: RS Rai, Aashish Chopra, Rubina Vermani, Rupa Pathania, Abhinav Kaushik, Himanshu Kashyap, Randeep Khaira, Arjun S. Rai, Prachi Gupta

Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC may be invoked to admit additional evidence in interlocutory proceedings if the evidence is relevant to the controversy, assists in the ends of justice, and does not cause irreparable prejudice, provided the opposing party is granted a fair opportunity to respond.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Order 8, Rule 1A - Order 39, Rule 4 - Injunction - Application to bring on record additional documents and affidavit at the stage of hearing inter-locutory application - Power under Section 151 is discretionary and inherent, intended to facilitate justice where the Code does not explicitly cover a procedural aspect or where it prevents abuse of process. (Paras 4.2-4.8, 9, 10)

(B) Civil Revision - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Not an appellate jurisdiction - Interference is limited to cases of grave dereliction of duty, patent perversity, or manifest injustice - Procedural orders allowing additional documents to ensure effective adjudication do not warrant interference when no prejudice is caused to the opposing party. (Paras 3, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order allowing an application to place on record an additional affidavit and documents during the pendency of a hearing on an application for modification/vacation of an interim injunction. The petitioner contended that the defendants were abusing the process, that the application was not maintainable under Section 151 when Order 8 Rule 1A applied, and that the introduction of documents was a surprise move intended to protract the litigation.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner's arguments regarding procedural delay were unsupported by the timeline of the suit, which had been affected by jurisdictional challenges and the rejection/restoration of the plaint. The court held that documents can be produced to substantiate pleadings in an interlocutory application even if they originate from existing broader pleadings. The court emphasized that procedure is the handmaid of justice and that, given the opportunity for the petitioner to file a rebuttal/reply, no prejudice resulted.

Issues: Whether an application for additional documents under Section 151 is maintainable during interlocutory proceedings, whether it is barred by the presence of Order 8 Rule 1A, and whether the High Court should exercise supervisory jurisdiction to overturn the trial court's order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that because Order 8 Rule 1A pertains to the production of documents with the written statement, it does not exhaustively bar the court's inherent power under Section 151 to allow evidence in subsequent interlocutory proceedings if such evidence assists in the just resolution of the matter. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to be exercised to correct mere procedural variations unless they demonstrate flagrant violation of law.

Result: Revision Petition dismissed.

***

The date when the judgment is reserved	11.05.2026
The date when the judgment is pronounced	18.05.2026
The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website	18.05.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced	Full Judgment

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff laying challenge to the order dated 21.04.2026 (Annexure P-21) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram; whereby application filed by the respondents/defendants No.1 to 7 under Section 151 CPC for placing on record Additional Affidavit along with documents, has been allowed.

The sequence of events in chronological order is as follows: –

16.05.2016: A Demerger Scheme was formulated between Emaar MGF Land Ltd. (Demerged Company) and MGF Development Ltd (Resulting Company). The appointed date for the Scheme was closing hours of 30.9.2015. The Suit land formed part of the Demerged Undertaking. It is the case of the petitioner that the Defendants/Respondents 1- 7 through Mr. Basant Bansal, Roop Kumar Bansal and Pankaj Bansal expressed interest in exchanging 31.12 acres of land in village Chauma, District Gurugram which formed part of this de-merged undertaking coming to the Plaintiff. The terms of transaction included payment of consideration in form of money in addition to exchange of land. Negotiations commenced with subsidiaries of Emaar, namely Messrs Sparsh Promoters, Sandesh and Sidhant.

18.11.2016: Civil Suit No.2536 of 2016 titled as Ms. Sparsh Promoters, Sandesh and Sidhant Vs. Cosmo, Surya, Star City, Neer and Vibrant – (all Subsidiaries) came to be filed allegedly because the Bansals attempted to exercise rights even before an understanding was formalised.

23.11.2016: A Compromise deed was executed between M/s Sparsh Promoters & Ors. And Cosmo & Ors. On 23.11.2016, five Exchange deeds were executed between M/s Sparsh Promoters & Ors. And Cosmo & Ors.

09.12.2016: Based on the compromise, a Lok Adalat Award was passed. (Both the plaint and the compromise deed form part of the Award).

31.12.2017: Plaintiff asserts that a third set of cheques towards exchange replaced the earlier ones.

27.03.2018: It is also the case of the petitioner that the Cheques presented towards discharge of liability for land exchange, were dishonoured.

28.03.2018: Letters were issued by subsidiaries - Sparsh to Messrs. Neer Builders, Surya Propcon, Cosmo Propbuild, Starcity Realtech/present defendants - intimating that cheques have not been honoured and hence the Exchange Deeds have been rendered void. It was contended that there was automatic cancellation of the Exchange Deeds which would be void ab initio on account of failure to honour the payment as, payment for the exchange of the land was not made. The Defendants/Respondents took a stand that while they issued the 1st and 2nd set of cheques, the 3rd set was not issued but signed cheques which were misplaced fell into the hands of the plaintiff and were presented.

08.01.2018/16.07.2018: The NCLT approved the Scheme with the appointed date of 30.9.2015; while approving the Scheme (corrected on 16 July 2018). The scheme was filed before the Registrar on 31.07.2018. It became effective from the appointed date.

27.08.2021: MGF (Plaintiff) on coming to know that the Defendants/Respondents had applied for licence on about 4.5 Acres of land which formed part of the Exchange, filed a complaint to DG, DTCP, Haryana regarding application submitted by Defendants/Respondents.

13.12.2021: MGF filed CWP 25534 of 2021 in the High Court alleging that the DTCP was not being fair in hearing the complaint; and challenging the Lok Adalat Award.

19.04.2022: CWP 25534 of 2021, was partly allowed by this Court. The complaint of the Plaintiff was referred to a different officer for decision. As regards the challenge to the Award, the writ was dismissed while leaving other remedies open.

04.05.2022: RA-CW-7

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 79867

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHNidhi Gupta, JMgf Developments Ltd. – AppellantVersusCosmo Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. – RespondentCR-3862-2026

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta, J
Mgf Developments Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Cosmo Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
CR-3862-2026