The Supreme Court has held that a party directly affected by an interim court order cannot be denied the right to participate in the proceedings, even if it was not an original litigant. 

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta has observed that a party directly and adversely affected by an interim order has a legitimate right to be heard. Even if not a “necessary party,” such a person qualifies at least as a “proper party”, whose presence enables complete adjudication. The High Court erred in treating the appellant as a stranger despite clear evidence that its interim order had immediate civil consequences for the developer. 

The judgment came in a dispute involving M/s Chopra Hotels Private Limited, which challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s refusal to implead it in an ongoing case concerning the Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025. 

The case arose after the appellant’s hotel property in Jalandhar faced sealing and demolition proceedings by municipal authorities over alleged building violations. The developer contended that its building complied with the newly notified 2025 Rules, which relaxed front setback requirements. 

However, the High Court had earlier passed an interim order staying provisions of the 2025 Rules that were inconsistent with prior regulations. This interim order became the basis for authorities to deny the appellant the benefit of the revised norms and proceed with coercive action, including demolition. 

When the appellant sought to intervene in the main writ petition challenging the 2025 Rules and requested clarification of the interim order, the High Court rejected both pleas, holding that the developer had “no lis” in the matter. 

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and emphasized that procedural technicalities cannot override substantive justice.

The bench observed that the interim order was not merely abstract but had been actively relied upon by authorities to deny approvals and justify demolition action against the appellant’s property. 

Relying on settled principles of impleadment, the Court reiterated that writ proceedings under Article 226 are not bound by strict procedural rules and must ensure fairness.

It stressed that when a court’s own order is being interpreted in a manner that harms a third party, denying that party an opportunity to clarify or contest such interpretation would be unjust. 

The Supreme Court issued the following key directions.

Firstly, the appellant shall be impleaded as a party in the pending writ petition challenging the 2025 Rules.

Secondly, the High Court is free to proceed with the main writ independently.

Thirdly, connected proceedings, including intra-court appeals and revision petitions relating to demolition, should be heard together but decided on their own merits.

Lastly, status quo must be maintained with respect to the property until disposal of related proceedings. 

The Supreme Court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the validity of the 2025 Rules or on whether the appellant’s building complies with them. All substantive issues have been left open for adjudication by the High Court.

Case Details

Case Title: M/S Chopra Hotels Private Limited Versus Harbinder Singh Sekhon & Ors. 

Citation: JURISHOUR-682-SC-2026 

Case No.: SLP (C) NO(S). 9321-9322 OF 2026

Date: 08/04/2026

Read More: Delay in Passing Assessment Order Bars Tax Demand; Mandates Acceptance of ITR: Bombay High Court