IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 130 CR-4958-2026 Date of decision: 03.07.2026 Reetu Goyal . . . . Petitioner Vs. District Town Planner (P), Gurugram and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr.Tapan Kumar Yadav and Mr.Shakeel Ahmed, Advocates, for the petitioner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 20.01.2026 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gurugram, whereby the application moved by the plaintiff seeking compliance of the earlier order dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure P- 2) in civil suit bearing Number CS-384-2025 titled ‘Reetu Goyal vs DTP & Others’ has been disposed of by declining to issue further directions and leaving the petitioner to pursue the remedy before the competent statutory authority. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while disposing of the application for ad interim injunction on 31.01.2025, the Trial Court had recorded the statement of the official of the District Town Planner that notice had already been issued to DLF for restoration of the petitioner's water and sewerage connections. It is contended that since the said statement has not been honoured, the Trial Court ought to have directed its compliance instead of dismissing the application. 3. I have considered the submissions. The contention is found to be devoid of merit. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.06 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4958-2026 2026:PHHC:090074 p. 2 4. The suit itself has been instituted seeking declaration that the notice issued by the District Town Planner alleging unauthorized construction is illegal and for consequential mandatory injunction directing restoration of water and sewerage connections. While considering the application for temporary injunction, the Trial Court merely took note of the statement made on behalf of the defendant that notice had been issued to DLF for restoration of the services and, in view thereof, observed that the interim prayer had become infructuous and consequently declined to grant any interim injunction. Thus, the order dated 31.01.2025 did not contain any positive or mandatory direction requiring the defendants to restore the water or sewerage connection. 5. A distinction has to be maintained between a judicial direction contained in an operative order and a statement made by a party before the Court. Where the Court merely records a statement and, on that basis, declines to grant interim relief, such order cannot subsequently be converted into a mandatory executable direction by filing an application styled as one for "compliance". If the petitioner was aggrieved by the non-implementation of the assurance allegedly given by the defendant, the remedy was either to seek appropriate interim relief in changed circumstances or to invoke such remedy as may be available in law, but not to seek execution of an order which, in fact, grants no executable relief. 6. It is further to be noted that subsequent to the order dated 31.01.2025, this High Court, while dealing with CWP No.1528 of 2021 and connected matters, directed that the issue relating to alleged building violations shall be examined by the District Town Planner (Enforcement), Gurugram, who alone has been held to be the competent statutory authority to consider the surveyor's report, entertain objections of the affected persons and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. It was further directed that no coercive or corrective action shall be taken till such objections are decided and any aggrieved person shall avail the statutory remedy thereafter. The learned Trial Court has rightly taken judicial notice of the aforesaid subsequent development and refrained from issuing directions, which could run contrary to or overlap VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.06 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4958-2026 2026:PHHC:090074 p. 3 with the field already occupied by the High Court in the pending writ proceedings. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that where a special statute creates a complete mechanism for adjudication before a designated statutory authority, Civil Courts ought not to pass orders, which interfere with or bypass such statutory process. Where the legislature provides a special forum for determination of disputes falling within its domain, ordinary civil jurisdiction must yield to the statutory mechanism to that extent. 8. The Trial Court has also rightly appreciated that after the High Court entrusted the issue of alleged violations to the District Town Planner (Enforcement), any consequential relief relating to restoration of services necessarily depended upon the outcome of the proceedings before the competent authority. The Civil Court could not issue directions having the effect of prejudging or rendering nugatory the proceedings pending before the statutory authority. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is intended to ensure that subordinate Courts act within the bounds of their jurisdiction. It is not an appellate jurisdiction to substitute another possible view merely because the petitioner perceives the impugned order to be erroneous. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329, and Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423, the Supreme Court held that interference under Article 227 is warranted only where the order suffers from patent perversity, gross procedural irregularity or jurisdictional error. 9. In the present case, the learned Trial Court has committed no jurisdictional error. Rather, it has correctly appreciated that: (i) the order dated 31.01.2025 contained no executable mandatory direction; (ii) the subsequent order of the High Court entrusted the controversy to the competent statutory authority; and (iii) the petitioner has been left free to pursue the statutory remedy and thereafter avail such legal remedy as may be available in accordance with law. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.06 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4958-2026 2026:PHHC:090074 p. 4 10. No perversity, illegality or material irregularity is, therefore, made out warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 03.07.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.06 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document