Stranger Affected By Interim Order Entitled To Impleadment In Writ Proceedings : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that a stranger to the proceedings, not being a party to the original Writ proceedings, cannot be denied impleadment if the order passed in the proceedings has a direct bearing on the stranger.

“In writ proceedings, where the Court is called upon to interpret the scope and operation of an interim order already passed by it, a person who is shown to be directly and demonstrably affected by that order cannot be shut out merely because such person was not an original party to the principal challenge.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

The matter came, wherein the Appellant, being directly prejudiced by the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order staying certain provisions of the Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025, suffered rejection of its revised building plans by the Municipal Authorities.

Due to rejection of the revised building plans, despite being fully compliant with the Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025, the Appellant was served with a demolition order, after a stay was imposed on certain provisions of the Building Rules.

The Appellant was aggrieved by the High Court's repetitive denial of their impleading in Writ proceedings pending before it, prompting an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Nath observed that the High Court erred in not letting the Appellant be impleaded in the Writ Proceedings to enable itself to deal in a fuller and fairer manner with the consequences of its own interim order. The Court said that when the Appellant was successful in demonstrating the affect of the interim order, it was incumbent upon the High Court to allow its impleadment.

“…when the Appellant demonstrated that the interim order passed in the said writ petition was being invoked to its detriment and was materially affecting the treatment of its property by the authorities, the Appellant could not be regarded as a stranger to the controversy. At the very least, the Appellant was a proper party whose presence would enable the High Court to deal in a fuller and fairer manner with the consequences of its own interim order.”, the court observed, pointing that the Appellant was a proper party “whose presence would enable the High Court to deal in a fuller and fairer manner with the consequences of its own interim order.”

Accordingly, the Court directed impleadment of the Appellant to the pending writ proceedings before the High Court.

“We are therefore of the view that the proper balance is to recognize the interconnection of the proceedings without collapsing them into one another. The Appellant cannot be denied participation in CWP No. 38742 of 2025 when the order passed therein has already produced demonstrable civil consequences for it.”, the court held.

Cause Title: M/S CHOPRA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS HARBINDER SINGH SEKHON & ORS.

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Swapnil Gupta, Adv. Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Adv. Mr. Harshit Gupta, Adv. Mr. Devansh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Shagun Chugh, Adv. Ms. Khyati Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Gautam, Adv. Mr. Divya Jot Singh, Adv. Mr. Shubham Singh Chauhan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Sr Adv./Adv.General Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr.Adv. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash, Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Singh, Adv. Mr. Charu Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR Mr. Rajat Bharadwaj, Adv. Mr. Ferry Sofat, Adv.