CR-975-202 IN THE HI 383 Mukhtiar Sin Dharshan Sin CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. impugned passed by th Case No. 07 whereby the was made ou Dehra Sahib Moga, Punja 2. that the ord passed witho required as petitioner re City Infrast U.P. and o 2026 -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H CR-97 Date o tiar Singh Versus han Singh and another M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. BS Guliani, Advocate for th Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Senior Adv Ms. Tejinder Kaur, Advocate fo I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been ned ex-parte orders dated 14.08.202 by the learned Sikh Gurdwara Judic o. 07/2025 titled ‘Darshan Singh and by the learned Commission, while ho ade out against the petitioner, appoint Sahib Patshahi Chevin, Village Dar , Punjab and restrained the petitioner fr At the very outset, learned coun he orders dated 14.08.2025 (Annexu without giving an opportunity of h as per law. In support of his conten ner relies upon a judgment of the Hon nfrastructure and Housing Limited and others: Law Finder Doc Id # ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 975-2026 Date of Decision: 12.05.2026 .… Petitioner .... Respondents NIDHI GUPTA e for the petitioner. or Advocate with cate for the respondents. s been filed for setting aside the 08.2025 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) Judicial Commission, Amritsar, in gh and another vs. Mukhtiar Singh’; ile holding that a prima facie case ppointed a Receiver over Gurdwara e Daroli Bhai, Tehsil and District oner from working. d counsel for the petitioner submits nnexure P-1 and P-2) have been y of hearing to the petitioner as is contentions, learned counsel for the he Hon’ble Supreme Court in Time imited Lucknow vs. The State of Id # 2762861; and order dated the 2) ; case ara trict mits een s is r the ime e of ated RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.14 20:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-975-202 11.02.2025 2023, titled Commission 3. Infrastructu 4. refute or con petitioner; the impugne 2026 -2- 2025 passed by a co-ordinate Bench titled as ‘Jagtar Singh and another ission and another’, decided on 11.0 Head Note A and para Nos. tructure’s case (supra), reads as follo “A. Code of Civil Procedure, Grant of ex parte injunctions for granting ex parte injunc opposite party – Compliance Rule 3 is mandatory – Such extraordinary jurisdiction exer prejudice the rights of the oppo 7. We are of the opinion th noncompliance by the app contained in the proviso then o which was persuaded to gra injunction confiding in the appl indulgence by the court h requirements of the proviso, it parte order of injunction witho the merits of the case leaving it hearing on the grant or otherw but bipartite only. The applica conduct he has deprived the o having an early or urgent hear the ex parte order of injunction any more. 8. However, having rega hearing is to take place on 12 the Trial Court and the Trial Co in so far as the prayer of the pla injunction is concerned, we impugned order. The Trial Cou defendants and decide the injun plaintiff on its own merits in a being influenced in any manne made by the High Court in its im Learned Senior Counsel for t or controvert the aforesaid submissio and on instructions submits that pugned orders (Annexures P-1 and P Bench of this Court in CR-4407- other vs. Sikh Gurdwara Judicial n 11.02.2025. Nos. 7 and 8 of the Time City as follows:- ure, 1908 – Order 39, Rule 3 – ons – Court must record reasons junctions without notice to the with the proviso to Order 39, uch compliance ensures that the exercised by the Court does not pposite party unjustly. on that if the court is satisfied of applicant with the provisions en on being so satisfied the court grant an ex parte ad interim applicant that having been shown t he would comply with the o, it would simply vacate the ex ithout expressing any opinion of ng it open to the parties to have a herwise on the order of injunction plicant would be told that by his he opponent of an opportunity of hearing on merits and, therefore, tion cannot be allowed to operate egard to the fact that now the n 12-8-2025 i.e. tomorrow before al Court is to hear both the parties e plaintiff for grant of appropriate we need not interfere with the Court shall hear the plaintiff and injunction application filed by the in accordance with law, without anner by any of the observations its impugned order.” for the respondents is unable to missions of learned counsel for the s that he has ‘no objection’ in case, nd P-2) are set aside; and the matter icial City ns he 9, he ot of ns urt im wn he ex of a on his of re, te he re ies te he nd he ut s e to the ase, atter RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.14 20:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-975-202 is remanded affording an 5. counsel for P-2) are set for deciding Judicial Com with law afte 6. accordingly. 7. 12.05.2026 rishu 2026 -3- anded back to the Court concerned for ing an opportunity of hearing to both t In view of the afore-noted fact el for the parties, the orders dated 14 set aside and the matter is remanded ciding the matter afresh. It shall be al Commission, concerned to pass app aw after granting opportunity of hearin The present revision petit ingly. Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable ed for passing the order afresh after h the parties. d facts and submissions of learned 14.08.2025 (Annexure P-1 and anded back to the Court concerned all be open to the Sikh Gurdwara ss appropriate orders in accordance hearing to all the concerned parties. petition stands disposed of, any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE ned Yes/No Yes/No after rned and rned ara ance of, RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.14 20:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.