Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Singh vs Prem Singh Sokhi on 29 January, 2026
CR Nos.9449 and 9451 of 2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
126 Date of decision: 29.01.2026
1. CR-9449-2025 (O&M)
Rajinder Singh ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Prem Singh Sokhi ...Respondent(s)
AND
2. CR-9451-2025 (O&M)
Rajinder Singh ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Prem Singh Sokhi and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Gurdeep Singh Sherdil, Advocate for the petitioner
in both the cases appear through VC.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CR-9449-2025 (O&M) Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff for quashing of the Impugned Order 28.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana in Civil Suit bearing No. CS 1349/2023; whereby the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC for interrogatories seeking admissions from the respondent/defendant regarding material facts in issue in the suit, has been dismissed.
DIVYANSHI2026.02.05 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR Nos.9449 and 9451 of 2025 (O&M) -2-
CR-9451-2025 (O&M)
Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant No.1 for quashing the Impugned Order 28.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana in Civil Suit bearing No. CS 3462/2023; whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC for interrogatories seeking admissions from the respondent/plaintiff regarding material facts in issue in the suit, has been dismissed.
2. Both the above said Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order as both emanate from the same order dated 28.11.2025; and are between the same parties albeit in different suits, however in respect of the same issue, same property, and before the same Court. For the sake of convenience, facts are being drawn from CR-9449-2025 titled as "Rajinder Singh vs. Prem Singh Sokhi."and parties are referred to as per their status in CR-9449-2025 emanating from the Civil Suit No. 1349 of 2023 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed Civil Suit No. 1349 dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure P-16) seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent No.1 herein, from demolishing the lintel and supporting walls of the suit property as described in the plaint; and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to raise pillars and beams alongwith partitioned wall between the respective properties of the parties. The respondent No.1 has also filed Civil Suit No. 3462 of 2023 (Annexure P-16 in CR-9451-2025) for DIVYANSHI 2026.02.05 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR Nos.9449 and 9451 of 2025 (O&M) -3- permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering in his peaceful possession in the suit property; and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendants therein from taking any photograph or making any video regarding the suit property.
4. Facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: -
24.02.2023: In the Civil Suit No. 1349 of 2023 filed by the petitioner, exparte ad interim injunction was granted and status quo was ordered to be maintained vide order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the ld. Civil Judge. 10.03.2023: Vide order dated 10.03.2023, the said exparte ad interim injunction was vacated.
20.03.2023: Thereafter, the respondent had filed an application dated 20.03.2023 (Annexure P-5) under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, for appointment of Local Commissioner stating therein that he is not demolishing any part of the suit property rather he is planning to construct a new building on the vacant plot.
01.09.2023: Respondent filed written statement (Annnexure P-7) to the Civil Suit No. 1349 of 2023 filed by the petitioner. 21.11.2025: On 21.11.2025, petitioner had moved instant application (Annexure P-2) for directing the respondent to admit or deny the interrogatories under Order 11 Rules 1,2 and 4 r/w Section 151 CPC. 27.11.2025: Respondent had filed reply dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-
3) to the said application of the petitioner.
28.11.2025: Vide the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P-1), the application of the petitioner for interrogatories has been dismissed. DIVYANSHI 2026.02.05 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR Nos.9449 and 9451 of 2025 (O&M) -4-
5. It is inter alia submitted by ld. counsel for the petitioner that this Court vide order dated 14.11.2023 passed in CRM-M-56990 of 2023 had directed Assistant Advocate General Haryana to visit the spot and submit report as to whether any damage has been caused to the house of the petitioner. Accordingly, AAG, Haryana visited the site and submitted report dated 29.11.2023 (Annexure P-9) before this Court stating therein that the respondent had damaged the house of the petitioner. Learned counsel further points out that in actual fact, respondent himself has admitted in his statement dated 20.07.2023 (Annexure P-15) made by him before the police that "After which on 10- 3-2023 when we started demolishing the house with the help of labour, Rajinder Singh filed a complaint PGD 128757 dated 10-3-2023 against us at police station Model Town Ludhiana where we presented out side." It is submitted that therefore, respondent has caused damage to the house of the petitioner.
6. It is pointed out that even in the counter blast Civil Suit No. 3462 of 2023 filed by the respondent against the petitioner, he had undertaken vide statement dated 21.03.2023 (Annexure P-6) made before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, not to make any demolition of the suit property. It is also submitted that the respondent has been taking contrary stand from time to time, sometimes admitting that he has carried out demolition and other times, he is denying the same. It is contended that in the present scenario, the Respondent/Defendant is repeatedly trying to pull wool DIVYANSHI 2026.02.05 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR Nos.9449 and 9451 of 2025 (O&M) -5- over the eyes of the Hon'ble Court by taking a recourse to the method of suppression by not disclosing all the material facts fairly and truly and presenting them in a distorted manner by manipulation and misrepresentation to mislead the court, all of which amounts to playing fraud with the Court. Accordingly, petitioner had filed instant application dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-2) under Order 11, Rule 1, 2 and 4 r/w Section 151 CPC calling upon the respondent to admit or deny interrogatories submitted by the petitioner.
7. It is submitted that therefore, in this scenario, the Trial Court was in error in dismissing application of the petitioner for interrogatories. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
8. No other argument is raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel and perused the file. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
The interrogatories submitted by petitioner read as under: -
"a) whether you purchased a vacant plot (the suit property)?
b) If you had purchased a constructed property, disclose the exact date when you demolished the old construction?
c) Disclose the exact date, when you started the reconstruction of the property?
d) Disclose the exact date, when you finished the process of reconstruction?
e) What are the new property UID numbers and the new plot No. re-designated to the half portion (370 yd2) of plot No. 220-L that you purchased in 2016?"DIVYANSHI
2026.02.05 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR Nos.9449 and 9451 of 2025 (O&M) -6-
9. Interrogatories are designed to save the rigour of protracted trial. However, the same cannot be misused for collecting evidence.
Clearly in the facts and circumstances of the case as noted above, admission or denial by the defendant/respondent, of the above said interrogatories would amount to giving evidence against himself. It is established position in law that party cannot be called upon to lead evidence against themselves and contrary to their interest. It is upon the plaintiff to prove his own case. In support, reference is made to the following two judgements of the Delhi High Court passed in Micromax Media Pvt Ltd v. M/s Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt Ltd, (Delhi): Law Finder Doc Id # 2043299; wherein it is held that: -
"A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XI Rules 1 and 5 Interrogatories - Objective of interrogatories is to narrow the controversy and facilitate framing of issues on disputed facts
- Interrogatories cannot be used to shift the plaintiff's burden of proof or to compel the defendant to answer questions in support of the plaintiff's case."
10. Reference is made to another judgment passed in Centrient Pharmaceuticals Netherlands B.V. v. Dalas Biotech Limited, (Delhi) :
Law Finder Doc Id # 1812872, wherein it is held that "....interrogatives by plaintiffs to extract something, which it could do so in the cross examination, cannot be allowed."
11. Furthermore, the respondent has already made known his stand in his written statement. From the pleadings of the respondent in the written statement as also documents relied upon by him, it would DIVYANSHI 2026.02.05 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR Nos.9449 and 9451 of 2025 (O&M) -7- appear that the respondent has already answered interrogatories proposed to be served upon him. The contention of the petitioner that respondent has sometimes been admitting and sometimes been denying demolition is misconceived as admittedly, vide order dated 10.03.2023, exparte ad injunction granted in favour of the petitioner directing to maintain status quo was vacated by the learned Trial Court. There is nothing on record to show that the said order dated 10.03.2023 was challenged by the petitioner. Rather it is recorded in the impugned order that "...the case remained pending for arguments on injunction application but instead of addressing the arguments on the application, the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff suffered a statement in the court on 02.03.2024 that he does not press the stay application at this stage and case may be fixed for evidence. Vide order dated 02.03.2024, the said application was disposed of being not pressed and issued were framed and case was adjourned for evidence of the plaintiff."
12. It is further recorded in the impugned order that "despite availing several opportunities, petitioner failed to lead any evidence in support of his contention in the suit." The petitioner therefore appears to be deliberately delaying trial. In this regard, the relevant observations of the learned Trial Court are contained in paras 4 and 5 of the impugned order dated 28.11.2025, which have not been controverted by learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, while dismissing the instant application, the Trial Court has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in: 1) Transport Corporation of India Ltd versus Reserve DIVYANSHI 2026.02.05 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR Nos.9449 and 9451 of 2025 (O&M) -8- Bank of India & Another' 2017 (4) Civil Court Cases 612; 2) M Kishan Rao versus R. Subramanyam, 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 317; 3) Thakur Prasad versus Md. Sohayal and others' Law Finder Doc Id #151818; and 4) Renu Lamba versus M/s. Sangunity Exim (India), Law Finder Doc Id #1470829. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to distinguish the above said judgments.
13. The interrogatories do not even appear to be relevant to the present suit in view of the following facts. It may be pointed out that the petitioner has failed to disclose before this Court in the present Civil Revision Petition that the petitioner had previously also filed CWP- 18722-2024 titled as 'Rajinder Singh versus State of Punjab and others' (which is still pending), wherein the petitioner has challenged the CLU/Change of Land Use granted by the Punjab government in favour of the present respondent. In the said writ petition CWP-18722-2024, against the judgment and order dated 13.09.2024 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, the respondent Prem Singh Sokhi had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP No. 24783 of 2024 titled as "Prem Singh Sokhi vs. State of Punjab and others". The said SLP was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16.12.2024, as under:
-
"Heard Mr. Puneet Bali, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent No.7 is represented by Mr. Charan Pal Singh Bagri, learned counsel.DIVYANSHI 2026.02.05 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR Nos.9449 and 9451 of 2025 (O&M) -9-
2. On 09.12.2024, this Court had passed the following order in IA No. 268040/2024, filed by the respondent No.7 to seek modification of this Court's interim order dated 22.10.2024:-
"... 2. The grievance of the respondent No.7, who is residing in the neighbourhood of the commercial building, that is being constructed by the petitioner is that, cracks have developed in his residential house. More importantly, the commercial building that is being constructed, with breakneck speed, does not fulfil the building norms in the concerned area i.e., Model Town, Ludhiana.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.7 is that if the ongoing construction is allowed to be completed, it will cause serious prejudice to the applicant, who is residing in the next plot of the subject building.
4. On the above, Mr. Puneet Bali, learned Senior Counsel submits that the main matter is still pending in the High Court. But to assuage the concerns raised by the respondent No.7 (applicant), it is submitted that the petitioner will file an undertaking with the assurance that any damage, which occurs in the building of the respondent No.7, will be repaired appropriately by the petitioner. Secondly, the petitioner also will file a clear undertaking that he will demolish the structures, which is already completed up to Basement + six floors, in the event, the verdict in the case is against the petitioner.
5. Noting the above submission, the petitioner is granted time until 11.12.2024, to file the appropriate undertaking on the above two terms. The latest photographs of the building along with a certificate of the Architect which will also show the residential building of the applicant in the adjacent plot must be enclosed.
6. The IA be re-listed on 16th December 2024."DIVYANSHI 2026.02.05 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR Nos.9449 and 9451 of 2025 (O&M) - 10 -
3. Since then, the petitioner has filed the Undertaking Affidavit on 12.12.2024, where the following undertaking is given on behalf of the petitioner.
7. That in compliance of the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court, the Deponent is giving the following undertaking: -
a. That the Deponent shall appoint an Independent Architect to ascertain if any damage has been caused to the property of Respondent No. 7, Mr. Rajinder Singh, situated at House No. 220- L, Gujjarkhan Road, Model Town, Ludhiana due to the construction undertaken by the Deponent. If any damage is found to have been caused due to the said construction, the Deponent undertakes to carry out appropriate repairs at the property of Respondent No. 7. b. That the Deponent further undertakes that, in case the final verdict of CWP No.18722 of 2024, is against the Deponent, the Deponent undertakes to carry out demolition or abide by any other orders/ alternative directions of the Hon'ble High Court, subject to the Deponent's right to appeal or pursue any appropriate legal remedy available to him."
4. The affidavit is accompanied by the certificate dated 11.12.2024 of the Civil Engineer, who conducted the survey of the subject building. The photographs of the current stage of the construction of the petitioner's building along with the photographs of the neighbouring building of the respondent No.7, are enclosed in the Undertaking Affidavit. The petitioner undertakes to repair the damage to the property of the respondent No.7 if the same is caused on account of the construction made by the petitioner. The statement is accepted. The respondent No.7 submits that some damage has already been caused to his building.
5. On the above contention of the respondent No.7, the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Bali, in reference to the DIVYANSHI 2026.02.05 15:48 undertaking in Clause 7(a) extracted above, categorically I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR Nos.9449 and 9451 of 2025 (O&M) - 11 -
states that if any damage is caused to the property of the respondent No.7, on account of construction activity of the petitioner, the petitioner will carry out proper repairs of the property of the respondent No.7. He however points out that neighbouring building of the respondent No.7 is not a new building but was constructed few decades earlier.
6. Having regard to the above, we deem it appropriate to order for closure of these proceedings by taking on record the Undertaking Affidavit filed on 12.12.2024 along with the appended certificate of the Engineer and the photographs. The Special Leave Petition along with IA (IA No. 268040/2024) is disposed of in the above terms. The interim order passed by this Court on 22.10.2024 will continue during the pendency of proceedings before the High Court and will abide by the final verdict in the CWP No.18722 of 2024.
7. Before parting, it is made clear that if Rajinder Singh (respondent No.7) has any concern about damage being caused to his building by the construction undertaken by the petitioner, he may avail services of certified chartered Engineer and then make appropriate application before the High Court, where the matter is pending. In the event of such application, the High Court is at liberty to pass appropriate order in terms of the aforesaid undertaking given by the petitioner.
8. The observations in the present order should not come in the way of the High Court in deciding the pending matter on its own merits.
9. Pending application(s), if any, stand closed."
14. Clearly therefore, the impugned order suffers from no error. In view of the above discussion, no ground is made out to exercise the DIVYANSHI 2026.02.05 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR Nos.9449 and 9451 of 2025 (O&M) - 12 -
revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Both Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed.
15. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
29.01.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2026.02.05 15:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document