Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Mamta Goel @ Mamta Rani Goel – Appellant
Versus
Dhanraj Mittal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedure for responding in court (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. discovery of documents in trial (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. insufficient reasoning by the trial court (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. setting aside of the impugned order (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. conclusion and disposal of the petition (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (ORAL)
1. At the first call in the pre-lunch session, proxy counsel had appeared for the counsel for the respondents and sought pass over on the ground that the learned counsel was on his legs in another Court.
2. On the second call at 02:55 PM, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents either.
3. The respondents are, thus, proceeded ex parte.
4. Petitioner challenges the order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court on an application under Order 11 Rule 1, 14 and 16 r/w Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 seeking disclosure/discovery of the documents.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is the case of the petitioner that the defendant No.5 is running his business in the subject suit property without the consent of the plaintiff and to that extent the petitioner sought indulgence of the Court under Order 11 seeking int
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
