Sh. Puneet Gautam, v. Sh. Jugal Kishore Goyal and Ors.

Delhi HC8 Dec 2025CM(M)/2373/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CM(M) 2373/2025, Delhi High Court, Girish Kathpalia J., 08.12.2025; Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC proceedings; challenge to trial court orders dated 03.11.2025-04.12.2025; plea of no notice/awareness of injunction order; demolition of construction; withdrawal with liberty; protection from coercive action for two weeks; Puneet Gautam v. Jugal Kishore Goyal; interim protection pending Rule 2A decision.

What did the court decide?

Petition and accompanying applications disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to approach this Court again after the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC is decided; protective direction that no coercive action be taken for two weeks if that application is allowed against the petitioner/defendant no.2. ¶¶14

Sh. Puneet Gautam, Vs Sh. Jugal Kishore Goyal and Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should stall the trial court proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and shield the petitioner/defendant no.2 from coercive action (including arrest/jail) while the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC remains undecided on merits.

¶¶13

Court's answer

Since the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC is yet to be decided on merits, it would not be appropriate for this Court to stall the trial court proceedings.

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

In case the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC is allowed against the petitioner/defendant no.2, no coercive action shall be taken against him for a period of two weeks, so as to enable him to approach this Court again.

¶¶14

Key takeaways

On instructions, learned counsel was permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach this Court again after the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC is decided.ratio¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Girish Kathpalia, J.), by order dated 08.12.2025 in CM(M) 2373/2025: Petitioner/defendant no.2, who had assailed seven trial court orders (03.11.2025 to 04.12.2025) in proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and claimed ignorance of the injunction order (construction since demolished; incorrect address in memo of parties), sought protection from coercive action as he was to appear before the trial court on 09.12.2025. Held: since the Rule 2A application was yet to be decided on merits, it was not appropriate to stall those proceedings; on instructions, petition withdrawn with liberty to return after the application is decided, but if the application is allowed against the petitioner, no coercive action shall be taken for two weeks.

¶1

$~57

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 2373/2025, CM APPL. 77264/2025, 77265/2025, 77266/2025, 77267/2025 & 77263/2025

¶4

SH. PUNEET GAUTAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajinder Mathur, Mr. Mr. Tarun Mathur and Mr. Akshat Singhal, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

SH. JUGAL KISHORE GOYAL AND ORS .....Respondents Through: SI Omkant Yadav, PS Hauz Qazi.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA O R D E R % 08.12.2025

¶9

Petitioner/defendant no.2 has assailed orders dated 03.11.2025, 10.11.2025, 13.11.2025, 17.11.2025, 26.11.2025, 29.11.2025 & 04.12.2025 of the learned trial court pertaining to the proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner/defendant no.2 that petitioner was never aware about the subject injunction order, otherwise he would not have not continued with the construction, which in any case has now been demolished. It is submitted by learned counsel that address mentioned in the memo of parties is not the correct address of the petitioner/defendant no.2 and in this regard learned counsel has taken me through the Sale Deed. Further, it is contended that the alleged construction was being carried out in completely different premises.

¶10

Since the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC is yet to be

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/12/2025 at 11:35:02

¶13

decided on merits, it would not be appropriate for this court to stall those proceedings. However, learned counsel apprehends that once the petitioner/defendant no.2 appears before the learned trial court on 09.12.2025, the application would be instantly decided and he would be sent to jail.

¶14

After some discussion, learned counsel for petitioner/defendant no.2 on instructions seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach this court again after the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC is decided. However, it is directed that in case the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC is allowed against the petitioner/defendant no.2, no coercive action shall be taken for a period of two weeks so as to enable the petitioner/defendant no.2 to approach this court again. Accordingly, the petition and the accompanying applications stand disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as sought.

¶15

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

¶16

DECEMBER 8, 2025/ ry

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/12/2025 at 11:35:02

Sh. Puneet Gautam, v. Sh. Jugal Kishore Goyal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Puneet Gautam, v. Sh. Jugal Kishore Goyal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vakeel Ahmed Vs Kamlesh Gupta

Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S G S Berar and Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Soni Dave

Katar Singh and Anr. Vs Kuldeep Singh & Ors.

Sumit Mehta Vs Divya Garg

Megha Nigam Vs Rohan Nigam

M/S Ananyaa Space Design and Consultants & Anr. Vs M/S Ranjit Interior

Malti Devi Vs Kapil Swami & Ors.

Vakeel Ahmed Vs Kamlesh Gupta

Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S G S Berar and Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Soni Dave

Dr Tariq Jalaly Vs Dr Tabbassum Bano

Ravinder Yadav Vs Deepak Yadav & Anr.

Shweta Jain through Spa Tarun Jain Vs Nand Lal Goyal