ORDER (Oral)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges an order dated 22nd August 2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (the learned ADJ) in CS DJ 10133/16 (Vishal Goel vs. Poonam Malhotra).

2. The opening paragraph of the impugned order reveals that the learned ADJ was seized of two applications filed by the petitioner, as Defendant 1 in the suit. One was under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and the second was under Order VIII Rule 10(A)(3) of the CPC.

3. The impugned order, however, while rejecting the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, does not specifically pass any order on the application under Order VIII Rule 10(A)(3), though Mr. Ravi Kant Chadha, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submits that, with the rejection of the petitioner's application under Order VI Rule 17, the fate of the application under Order VIII Rule 10(A)(3) was pre-ordained, as the said application was merely consequential to the application under Order VI Rule 17.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, needless to say, would dispute this contention.

5. This Court does not express any opinion on this aspect, as it would be appropriat