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 ...Pe00oner(s) Vs. Prem Singh Sokhi ...Respondent(s) AND 2. CR-9451-2025 (O&M) Rajinder Singh ...Pe00oner(s) Vs. Prem Singh Sokhi and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Gurdeep Singh Sherdil, Advocate for the pe))oner in both the cases appear through VC. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. CR-9449-2025 (O&M) Present Civil Revision Pe))on under Ar)cle 227 of the Cons)tu)on of India has been /led by the plain)1 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 applica)on /led by the pe))oner/plain)1 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. 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) - 2 - CR-9451-2025 (O&M) Present Civil Revision Pe))on under Ar)cle 227 of the Cons)tu)on of India has been /led 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 applica)on /led by the pe))oner/defendant under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC for interrogatories seeking admissions from the respondent/plain)1 regarding material facts in issue in the suit, has been dismissed. 2. Both the above said Civil Revision Pe))ons are being disposed of by this common order as both emanate from the same order dated 28.11.2025; and are between the same par)es albeit in di1erent 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 )tled as “Rajinder Singh vs. Prem Singh Sokhi.”and par)es are referred to as per their status in CR-9449-2025 emana)ng from the Civil Suit No. 1349 of 2023 /led by the plain)1/pe))oner herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the pe))oner has /led Civil Suit No. 1349 dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure P-16) seeking permanent injunc)on restraining the defendant/respondent No.1 herein, from demolishing the lintel and suppor)ng walls of the suit property as described in the plaint; and for mandatory injunc)on direc)ng the defendant to raise pillars and beams alongwith par))oned wall between the respec)ve proper)es of the par)es. The respondent No.1 has also /led 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 injunc)on restraining the pe))oner from interfering in his peaceful possession in the suit property; and for permanent injunc)on restraining the pe))oner/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 /led by the pe))oner, exparte ad interim injunc)on 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 injunc)on was vacated. 20.03.2023: ThereaCer, the respondent had /led an applica)on dated 20.03.2023 (Annexure P-5) under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC read with Sec)on 151 CPC, for appointment of Local Commissioner sta)ng 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 /led wriDen statement (Annnexure P-7) to the Civil Suit No. 1349 of 2023 /led by the pe))oner. 21.11.2025: On 21.11.2025, pe))oner had moved instant applica)on (Annexure P-2) for direc)ng the respondent to admit or deny the interrogatories under Order 11 Rules 1,2 and 4 r/w Sec)on 151 CPC. 27.11.2025: Respondent had /led reply dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P- 3) to the said applica)on of the pe))oner. 28.11.2025: Vide the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P-1), the applica)on of the pe))oner 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 submiDed by ld. counsel for the pe))oner 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 pe))oner. Accordingly, AAG, Haryana visited the site and submiDed report dated 29.11.2023 (Annexure P-9) before this Court sta)ng therein that the respondent had damaged the house of the pe))oner. Learned counsel further points out that in actual fact, respondent himself has admiDed in his statement dated 20.07.2023 (Annexure P-15) made by him before the police that “Aer which on 10- 3-2023 when we started demolishing the house with the help of labour, Rajinder Singh &led a complaint PGD 128757 dated 10-3-2023 against us at police sta,on Model Town Ludhiana where we presented out side.” It is submiDed that therefore, respondent has caused damage to the house of the pe))oner. 6. 6. It is pointed out that even in the counter blast Civil Suit No. 3462 of 2023 /led by the respondent against the pe))oner, 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 demoli)on of the suit property. It is also submiDed that the respondent has been taking contrary stand from )me to )me, some)mes admiGng that he has carried out demoli)on and other )mes, 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 presen)ng them in a distorted manner by manipula)on and misrepresenta)on to mislead the court, all of which amounts to playing fraud with the Court. Accordingly, pe))oner had /led instant applica)on dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-2) under Order 11, Rule 1, 2 and 4 r/w Sec)on 151 CPC calling upon the respondent to admit or deny interrogatories submiDed by the pe))oner. 7. It is submiDed that therefore, in this scenario, the Trial Court was in error in dismissing applica)on of the pe))oner for interrogatories. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 8. No other argument is raised by learned counsel for the pe))oner. I have heard learned counsel and perused the /le. I /nd no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the pe))oner. The interrogatories submiDed by pe))oner 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 construc,on? c) Disclose the exact date, when you started the reconstruc,on of the property? d) Disclose the exact date, when you &nished the process of reconstruc,on? e) What are the new property UID numbers and the new plot No. re-designated to the half por,on (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 collec)ng 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 posi)on in law that party cannot be called upon to lead evidence against themselves and contrary to their interest. It is upon the plain)1 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 Hewle@ 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 - Objec,ve of interrogatories is to narrow the controversy and facilitate framing of issues on disputed facts - Interrogatories cannot be used to shi the plain,>'s burden of proof or to compel the defendant to answer ques,ons in support of the plain,>'s case.” 10. Reference is made to another judgment passed in Centrient Pharmaceu0cals Netherlands B.V. v. Dalas Biotech Limited, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1812872, wherein it is held that “....interroga,ves by plain,>s to extract something, which it could do so in the cross examina,on, cannot be allowed.” 11. Furthermore, the respondent has already made known his stand in his wriDen statement. From the pleadings of the respondent in the wriDen 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 conten)on of the pe))oner that respondent has some)mes been admiGng and some)mes been denying demoli)on is misconceived as admiDedly, vide order dated 10.03.2023, exparte ad injunc)on granted in favour of the pe))oner direc)ng 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 pe))oner. Rather it is recorded in the impugned order that “...the case remained pending for arguments on injunc,on applica,on but instead of addressing the arguments on the applica,on, the Ld. Counsel for plain,> su>ered a statement in the court on 02.03.2024 that he does not press the stay applica,on at this stage and case may be &xed for evidence. Vide order dated 02.03.2024, the said applica,on was disposed of being not pressed and issued were framed and case was adjourned for evidence of the plain,>.” 12. It is further recorded in the impugned order that “despite availing several opportuni,es, pe,,oner failed to lead any evidence in support of his conten,on in the suit.” The pe))oner therefore appears to be deliberately delaying trial. In this regard, the relevant observa)ons 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 pe))oner. Further, while dismissing the instant applica)on, the Trial Court has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in: 1) Transport Corpora0on 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 pe))oner is unable to dis)nguish 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 pe))oner has failed to disclose before this Court in the present Civil Revision Pe))on that the pe))oner had previously also /led CWP- 18722-2024 )tled as ‘Rajinder Singh versus State of Punjab and others’ (which is s)ll pending), wherein the pe))oner has challenged the CLU/Change of Land Use granted by the Punjab government in favour of the present respondent. In the said writ pe))on 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 )tled 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 pe,,oner. 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, &led by the respondent No.7 to seek modi&ca,on 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 pe,,oner is that, cracks have developed in his residen,al house. More importantly, the commercial building that is being constructed, with breakneck speed, does not ful&l 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 construc,on 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 maHer is s,ll pending in the High Court. But to assuage the concerns raised by the respondent No.7 (applicant), it is submiHed that the pe,,oner will &le an undertaking with the assurance that any damage, which occurs in the building of the respondent No.7, will be repaired appropriately by the pe,,oner. Secondly, the pe,,oner also will &le a clear undertaking that he will demolish the structures, which is already completed up to Basement + six Joors, in the event, the verdict in the case is against the pe,,oner. 5. No,ng the above submission, the pe,,oner is granted ,me un,l 11.12.2024, to &le the appropriate undertaking on the above two terms. The latest photographs of the building along with a cer,&cate of the Architect which will also show the residen,al 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 pe,,oner has &led the Undertaking AKdavit on 12.12.2024, where the following undertaking is given on behalf of the pe,,oner. 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 construc,on undertaken by the Deponent. If any damage is found to have been caused due to the said construc,on, 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 &nal verdict of CWP No.18722 of 2024, is against the Deponent, the Deponent undertakes to carry out demoli,on or abide by any other orders/ alterna,ve direc,ons 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 aKdavit is accompanied by the cer,&cate dated 11.12.2024 of the Civil Engineer, who conducted the survey of the subject building. The photographs of the current stage of the construc,on of the pe,,oner’s building along with the photographs of the neighbouring building of the respondent No.7, are enclosed in the Undertaking AKdavit. The pe,,oner undertakes to repair the damage to the property of the respondent No.7 if the same is caused on account of the construc,on made by the pe,,oner. The statement is accepted. The respondent No.7 submits that some damage has already been caused to his building. 5. On the above conten,on of the respondent No.7, the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Bali, in reference to the undertaking in Clause 7(a) extracted above, categorically 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) - 11 - states that if any damage is caused to the property of the respondent No.7, on account of construc,on ac,vity of the pe,,oner, the pe,,oner 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 AKdavit &led on 12.12.2024 along with the appended cer,&cate of the Engineer and the photographs. The Special Leave Pe,,on 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 con,nue during the pendency of proceedings before the High Court and will abide by the &nal verdict in the CWP No.18722 of 2024. 7. Before par,ng, it is made clear that if Rajinder Singh (respondent No.7) has any concern about damage being caused to his building by the construc,on undertaken by the pe,,oner, he may avail services of cer,&ed chartered Engineer and then make appropriate applica,on before the High Court, where the maHer is pending. In the event of such applica,on, the High Court is at liberty to pass appropriate order in terms of the aforesaid undertaking given by the pe,,oner. 8. The observa,ons in the present order should not come in the way of the High Court in deciding the pending maHer on its own merits. 9. Pending applica,on(s), if any, stand closed.” 14. Clearly therefore, the impugned order su1ers 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 jurisdic)on of this Court. Both Civil Revision Pe))ons stand dismissed. 15. Pending applica)on(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