Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Rattan And Others vs Velocity Chemicals Pvt Ltd And Another on 10 December, 2025
CR-9253-2025 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(127) CR-9253-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-10.12.2025
Ram Rattan and others
... Petitioners
Versus
Velocity Chemical Private Limited and another
... Respondents
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Kamal Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Aashish Chopra, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Dhruv Kapoor, Advocate,
Mr. Rajan Kohli, Advocate and
Mr. Rupa Pathania, Advocate and
Mr. Assish Kundu, Advocate
for caveator/respondent No.1.
****
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to assail the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat. By the said order, the Court below dismissed the petitioner's application wherein he had prayed for setting aside the preliminary decree and for remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh adjudication on issues pertaining to the existence and alignment of the rasta, khal, and the nature of the land. In the alternative, the petitioner had sought framing of additional issues and calling of a report from the trial Court to clarify these 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 14-12-2025 07:07:51 ::: CR-9253-2025 (O&M) -:2:- matters. The rejection of this application forms the subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.
2. Briefly stated, the respondent-plaintiffs instituted a suit seeking separate possession by way of partition of the suit property to the extent of their respective shares. The suit was contested by the petitioner/defendant, who asserted that he is the owner and exclusive possessor of three bighas of land comprised in Khasra No. 844, measuring 3 bighas, and that the respondents have no concern, right, or interest therein. The learned Civil Judge, upon consideration of the pleadings and material on record, passed a preliminary decree allowing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs. 2.2. Aggrieved by the said judgment and preliminary decree, the petitioner preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appellate proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Order 41 Rules 23, 23- A, 24, and 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking setting aside of the preliminary decree dated 19.08.2025 and remand of the matter to the trial Court for fresh adjudication on issues relating to the existence of rasta, khal, and classification/nature of the land. In the alternative, he prayed for framing of additional issues, calling for findings from the learned Civil Judge on these aspects, or, in the further alternative, for modification of the preliminary decree to ensure provision of an appropriate rasta or khal to the petitioner in consonance with the revenue record and the prevailing site conditions.
3. The application was dismissed by the Court below, and the said order has now been impugned on the ground that the learned Additional District Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under law and has erroneously rejected the application. It is the contention of the petitioner 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 14-12-2025 07:07:52 ::: CR-9253-2025 (O&M) -:3:- that the Court below did not advert to the material issues raised and thereby committed a jurisdictional error warranting interference in the exercise of supervisory powers.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent No.1 at considerable length, and have thereafter undertaken a careful, thorough, and comprehensive examination of the entire paper-book.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Additional District Judge ought to have allowed the application and should have referred the issues pertaining to the rasta, khal, and the nature/classification of the land to the learned Civil Judge for fresh determination. It is contended that the failure of the appellate Court to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it amounts to a manifest illegality and a jurisdictional error. Consequently, it is urged that this Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is required to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter for appropriate adjudication.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1 has contended that the adjudication of the suit must necessarily be confined to the pleadings of the parties. It is submitted that in the written statement, the petitioner has asserted ownership and possession only in respect of Khasra No. 844, measuring 3 bighas, which claim has already been recognized and granted to him by the preliminary decree. The petitioner has neither claimed any right of passage (rasta or khal) over his share nor challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Court in his pleadings. In these circumstances, it is argued that the learned Additional District Judge 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 14-12-2025 07:07:52 ::: CR-9253-2025 (O&M) -:4:- correctly exercised judicial discretion in disallowing the application, as there was no legal or factual basis for remitting the matter or framing additional issues.
7. I have perused the record of the lower Court with utmost care and attention. A careful reading of the impugned order reveals that the application filed by the petitioner was not rejected outright by the learned Additional District Judge. Rather, the Court consciously refrained from adjudicating the application at that particular stage of the proceedings. This position is explicitly reflected in the findings recorded in paragraph 25 of the impugned order, which reads as follows:-
25. "As such in above a situation, question of law shall be substantially in issue that where land of all Khasra numbers of suit land which has been reflected as Gair Mumkin i.e. non cultivable in the revenue record, except land of Khasra no.844 Chahi i.e. agriculture exclusively claimed by defendants, in such a situation whether civil court alone has the jurisdiction to partition the entire land or Revenue Court has such jurisdiction since khasra no. 844 is reflected as agriculture land. Prima facie at this stage it appears that there is no occasion for framing additional issues by the civil court or by this court regarding existence of Rasta, Khal etc and to remand the matter to Ld. Trial Court, moreover when issue of jurisdiction of either civil or revenue court shall a moot point during hearing of the main appeal pending in this court and as per settled proposition of law in the first appeal entire pleadings, facts, evidence has also to be scrutinized by the First Appellate Court. As such at this stage there is no merit in the application."
8. A reading of paragraph No.25 of the impugned order makes it evident that the learned Additional District Judge has deliberately retained 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 14-12-2025 07:07:52 ::: CR-9253-2025 (O&M) -:5:- the question raised in the petitioner's application for consideration alongside the main appeal. It is further pertinent to note that the present appeal is directed against a preliminary decree. By its very nature, a preliminary decree only determines the respective shares of the parties in the suit property. The detailed mode of partition, including the division of the property by metes and bounds, is to be addressed during the proceedings for drawing the final decree. Accordingly, issues relating to the rasta, khal, and other incidental matters can be adjudicated at the stage of the final decree, having regard to the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record. This approach ensures that the principles of natural justice and proper adjudication are duly complied with, without pre-empting the proceedings that are meant to resolve the precise mode and manner of partition.
9. Learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1 has highlighted that during cross-examination, the petitioner categorically admitted that his land in Khasra No. 844 is being irrigated through a tubewell and also abuts his other agricultural land. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the land is adequately irrigated and enjoys access through the petitioner's other contiguous holdings. It is further contended that the present application appears to have been filed primarily with the object of delaying the disposal of the suit. Having regard to these facts, and in the context of the impugned order, it is noteworthy that the learned Additional District Judge has not dismissed the application outright, but has kept the question alive to be adjudicated along with the main appeal on merits. This approach ensures that the matter is considered in its proper factual and legal context without causing undue prejudice to any party.
5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 14-12-2025 07:07:52 ::: CR-9253-2025 (O&M) -:6:-
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this revision petition is disposed of with the direction that, while adjudicating the final appeal, the learned Additional District Judge shall duly consider the objections raised by the petitioner through the application and decide the same in accordance with the pleadings, the facts, the evidence on record, and in light of the nature and scope of proceedings relating to the preliminary decree.
11. It is clarified that the observations made here-in-above are strictly confined to the controversy arising in the present revision petition and shall not be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case. They are intended solely to address the specific questions of law and procedure involved in this petition.
12. Since the main matter has now been concluded, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of in consequence, with no further orders being necessary.
( VIRINDER AGGARWAL)
10.12.2025 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 14-12-2025 07:07:52 :::