IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 130 CR-4116-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision.: 07.04.2026 Manoj Ahuja and Others …..Pe22oners Vs. Mahesh Bajaj and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate for the peoners. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present peon arises out of a suit for declaraon with consequenal relief of permanent and mandatory injuncon instuted by the plainffs–peoners. During the pendency of the suit, an applicaon under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 25.07.2024 (Annexure P-5), whereby defendant No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) was restrained from raising any construcon over the suit property without obtaining sancon of the site plan from the competent authority. The said order was upheld by the learned Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal vide order dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-6), thereby affirming the injuncon granted by the Trial Court. 2. Subsequently, the peoners–plainffs moved an applicaon (Annexure P-11) seeking implementaon of the aforesaid injuncon order, alleging that respondent No.1 was acng in violaon thereof by raising construcon without ge6ng the site plan duly sanconed. The said applicaon has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide impugned NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.08 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4116-2025 (O&M) -2- order dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure P-12), primarily on the ground that the site plan had, in fact, been sanconed by the competent authority. 3. Assailing the aforesaid impugned order, learned counsel for the peoners has contended that the so-called sancon of the site plan was not in conformity with the applicable master plan, and therefore, the construcon raised by respondent No.1 could not be said to be in compliance with the injuncon order dated 25.07.2024. It is thus argued that the Courts below erred in declining the relief sought in the applicaon for implementaon. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the peoners and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no merit in the present peon. 5. A plain reading of the order dated 25.07.2024, as affirmed by the Appellate Court, makes it evident that the restraint imposed upon defendant No.1 was limited in scope, namely, that no construcon shall be raised without obtaining sancon of the site plan from the competent authority. The injuncon did not extend to examining the validity of such sancon with reference to the master plan or any other regulatory framework, nor did it impose any condion beyond the requirement of prior approval. 6. The impugned order dated 08.05.2025 reveals that defendant Nos.2 and 3, i.e. Municipal Corporaon, Faridabad—the competent authority in this regard, have taken a categorical stand before the Trial Court that the site plan produced by respondent No.1 stands duly approved by them. Once the competent statutory authority itself acknowledged grant of sancon, the essenal condion embedded in the injuncon order stands sasfied. 7. The contenon raised by the peoners that such sancon is not in consonance with the master plan travels beyond the scope of the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.08 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4116-2025 (O&M) -3- injuncon order sought to be implemented. Proceedings for implementaon or enforcement of an interim injuncon cannot be converted into a roving enquiry regarding the legality or correctness of administrave approval granted by a statutory authority. If the peoners are aggrieved by the grant of sancon on the ground of violaon of the master plan or any statutory provisions, the appropriate remedy lies in challenging the said sancon before the competent forum in accordance with law, and not by invoking the jurisdicon of the Trial Court under the guise of implementaon of an injuncon order. 8. It is well se?led that an injuncon order has to be construed strictly in terms of its express language and cannot be enlarged by implicaon. The Court, while dealing with an applicaon alleging violaon, is only required to examine whether the act complained of falls within the mischief of the restraint order. In the present case, once it is established that the site plan had been sanconed by the competent authority, no violaon of the injuncon order can be said to have been made out. 9. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal posion, the learned Trial Court was fully jusfied in dismissing the applicaon filed by the peoners seeking implementaon of the order dated 25.07.2024. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdiconal error warranng interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present peon, the same is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applicaons, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 07, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.08 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document