CWP-19204-2026 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19204-2026 Date of decision: 12.06.2026 Khatri Jan Kalyan Sabha ...Pe##oner Versus Kshtriya Sabha/Khatri Sabha and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. D.S. Matya, Advocate (Through VC) for the pe##oner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of the present writ pe##on filed under Ar#cle 226 of the Cons#tu#on of India, the pe##oner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of cer#orari for quashing the proceedings pending before respondent No.2 – District Registrar, Firms and Socie#es, Ambala, arising out of an appeal preferred by respondent No.1 against the order dated 27.06.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the pe##oner submits that the pe##oner is a society duly registered under the Haryana Registra#on and Regula#on of Socie#es Act, 2012. It is contended that the controversy originated from a complaint dated 26.02.2024 submi?ed by respondent No.1, claiming itself to be Kshtriya Sabha/Khatri Sabha registered under Registra#on No.44 of 1939-40, seeking cancella#on of the registra#on of the pe##oner-society. AAer affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned par#es and considering the material placed on record, the complaint came to be closed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 27.06.2024 (Annexure P-4). 3. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.1 thereaAer preferred an appeal on 03.01.2025 challenging the aforesaid YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.15 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19204-2026 [2] order. According to the pe##oner, the appeal is ex facie barred by limita#on and is not accompanied by any applica#on seeking condona#on of delay. It is further argued that under the statutory scheme, the appeal is maintainable before the Registrar and not before the District Registrar and, therefore, the proceedings are without jurisdic#on. Learned counsel points out that the pe##oner has already filed a detailed reply to the appeal and has also moved an applica#on dated 05.06.2026 (Annexure P-7) raising preliminary objec#ons regarding maintainability, limita#on and jurisdic#on. However, respondent No.2 has fixed the ma?er for final arguments on 15.06.2026 through video conferencing without first deciding the aforesaid objec#ons. On these premises, prayer has been made for quashing the pending proceedings. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the pe##oner and perused the paper-book. 5. The principal grievance of the pe##oner is that the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 is barred by limita#on and is not maintainable before respondent No.2. However, it is not disputed that the appeal remains pending considera#on before the competent authority and that the pe##oner has already raised all such objec#ons by filing a detailed reply as well as a specific applica#on (Annexure P-7). 6. The ques#ons as to whether the appeal is within limita#on, whether delay, if any, deserves to be condoned, and whether respondent No.2 possesses the requisite jurisdic#on to entertain and decide the appeal, are all issues which fall squarely within the domain of the appellate authority itself. Such objec#ons go to the root of the ma?er and are required to be examined by the authority before adjudica#ng the appeal on merits. 7. It is a se?led principle that the extraordinary jurisdic#on of this YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.15 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19204-2026 [3] Court under Ar#cle 226 of the Cons#tu#on is ordinarily not exercised to interdict proceedings pending before a statutory authority at an interlocutory stage, par#cularly when the authority is competent to consider and decide all objec#ons rela#ng to maintainability and jurisdic#on. Interference at this stage would amount to pre-emp#ng a decision on issues which are yet to be adjudicated by the authority concerned. 8. Significantly, the appeal in ques#on has been pending since January 2025 and is now fixed for arguments. In such circumstances, this Court finds no jus#fica#on to invoke its writ jurisdic#on for quashing the proceedings themselves, especially when the pe##oner has an adequate opportunity to press all the objec#ons already raised before the authority concerned. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival conten#ons, the present writ pe##on is disposed of with liberty to the pe##oner to raise all permissible pleas before respondent No.2, including those rela#ng to limita#on, maintainability and jurisdic#on. 10. It is expected that before proceeding further in the ma?er, respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the preliminary objec#ons raised by the pe##oner, including those contained in applica#on dated 05.06.2026 (Annexure P-7), in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order. Disposed of accordingly. 12.06.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.15 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document