Jagdish Kumar Vs Vatika City Apartment Owners Association and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Jagdish Kumar Vs Vatika City Apartment Owners Association and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim consent arrangement: petitioner-plaintiff to clear entire maintenance arrears w.e.f. 01.08.2019 and continue paying current charges; respondents to restore all amenities including the electricity connection; deposit of 50% of arrears within a week triggers restoration/provisioning of amenities, balance 50% within one month; deposit and amenity provisioning subject to the final decision of the suit; all pending miscellaneous applications disposed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff (petitioner Jagdish Kumar) is required to pay maintenance charges to respondent No.1, and from which date — 2012 (deed of declaration under Section 11(2), Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983) per respondent No.1, versus 01.08.2019 (condominium handover) per the petitioner. +1 more

Court's answer

With the main issue still pending before the Civil Court, the Court chose not to adjudicate the maintenance-liability question and disposed of the revision through interim terms rather than deciding it.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner-plaintiff is to clear the entire arrears of maintenance w.e.f. 01.08.2019 and to keep paying current maintenance charges.

Key takeaways

The respondents-defendants are to restore forthwith all amenities to which the plaintiff is entitled, including provisioning of the electricity connection.ratio¶¶18
The plaintiff is to deposit 50% of the arrears within a week; upon that deposit all amenities, including the electricity connection, are to be restored/provided.ratio¶¶19
The remaining 50% of the arrears is to be deposited within a further period of one month.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh | CR-4952-2024 (O&M) | Jagdish Kumar v. Vatika City Apartment Owners Association and another | Pankaj Jain, J. (oral), 27.04.2026 | Civil revision against an order passed on an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC in a suit over payment of maintenance charges. Petitioner relied on defendant No.1's own written statement that the condominium was handed over to the Association only w.e.f. 01.08.2019, and on a communication dated 06.11.2023 said to show a No Due Certificate up to that date; respondent No.1 insisted liability runs from the deed of declaration under Section 11(2) of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983. Declining to settle that question, the Court disposed of the revision by consent terms: petitioner-plaintiff to clear all maintenance arrears w.e.f. 01.08.2019 and keep paying current charges; respondents to restore forthwith all amenities including the electricity connection; 50% of arrears to be deposited within a week (amenities restored on deposit), balance 50% within a month; deposit and provisioning subject to the final decision of the suit; pending miscellaneous applications disposed.

[283] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-4952 - 2024 (O&M) Date of D ecision : 27.04.2026

Jagdish K umar …Petitioner

versus

Vatika C i ty Apartment Owners Associati o n and another ….Respondents

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present: Mr. Aashish Chopra, Senior A dvocate with Mr. Varun Arya n Sharma, Advocate for the pe t itioner.

Mr. Shekhar Verma, Adv o cate with Mr. Yashvir Balh a ra, Advocate and Mr. Jagraj Sin g h, Advocate for respondent No.1. ****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] The issue in the lis is wheth e r the plaintiff is required to pay the maintena n ce charges or not.

[2] Mr. Chopra, learned Se n ior Counsel appearing for the petitione r , refers to the written statement of RWA-defendant No.1 to su b mit that once the condominium was handed over to the association only w . e.f. 01.08.20 1 9, they have no right to charg e maintenance charges w.e.f. 2 0 12. He also r e lies upon communication date d 06.11.2023, claiming that No D ue Certificat e till date i.e. 06.11.2023 sta n ds issued and thus the petiti o ner cannot b e said to be in arrears for the tim e prior to 06.11.2023.

[3] Per contra, Mr. Verma, co u nsel for respondent No.1, w o uld submit th a t the plaintiff is liable to pay m a intenance charges from the dat e of deed of d e claration executed under Secti o n 11 (2) of the Haryana Apart m ent RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.01 16:27 I agree to specified portions Ownersh i p Act, 1983. of this document

CR-4952-2024 (O&M)

-2-

[4] This revision is against order passed on application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC.

[5] Since the main issue is pending consideration before the Civil Court, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose off the present revision petition in the following terms:-

(i) That the petitioner-plaintiff shall clear the entire arrears of maintenance w.e.f. 01.08.2019 and shall continue to pay current charges.

(ii) The respondent(s)-defendant(s) shall restore all amenities to which the plaintiff is entitled forthwith including provisioning of the electricity connection.

(iii) The plaintiff shall deposit 50% of the arrears within a week. On such deposit, all the amenities including electricity connection will be restored/provided to the petitioner.

(iv) The remaining 50% amount of the arrears shall be deposited further within a further period of one month.

[6] The deposit as well as the provisioning of the amenities shall be subject to the final decision of the suit. The order has been passed with the consent of counsel(s) appearing for the rival parties.

[7] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off .

(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE

27.04.2026

‘R. Sharma'

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.01 16:27 I agree to specified portions of this document