[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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
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
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
