Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J
Jatinder Singh Kukreja – Appellant
Versus
Narinder Singh Sood – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eviction proceedings and discovery challenge background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. procedural arguments regarding rent controller's discretion. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. rent controller is persona designata, not a civil court. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 4. non-maintainability of cpc-based discovery applications. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
Petitioner-Jitender Singh Kukreja has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order, dated 2nd January, 2025, passed in CMA No. 3007 of 2024, in Rent Case No. 59/2 of 2017/2014.
2. By way of order, dated 2nd January, 2025, the learned Rent Controller, Court No. 1, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rent Controller’) has dismissed the application, filed under Order XI Rules 1, 2, 4, 12 and 14, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), moved by the petitioner.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the lis, are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned Rent Controller.
4. Facts, in b
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
