Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURESH JAIN & OTHERS versus ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (J.D.) COURT NO. 3, MEERUT & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Suresh Jain & Others v. Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) Court No. 3, Meerut & Others - WRIT - C No. 10612 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 4113 (21 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

The petitioners challenge the order dated 25.1.2006 whereby the court below has allowed an application moved by the respondents-plaintiffs under order XI Rule 12 C.P.C. directing discovery of certain documents by the petitioners.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the election of 26 executive members is subject of challenge in the suit. The elections of the office bearers which include President, Vice-President, Secretary General, Deputy Secretary and Treasurer are alone under challenge in the suit. The documents sought to be required are not relevant for the purposes to throw real light on the controversies arising in the suit between the parties.

From the perusal of the impugned order it so appears that the court below has found that the documents mentioned in the petition under Order XI Rule 12 C.P.C. appear to be quite necessary for just and proper disposal of temporary injunction matter and accordingly the court has allowed the petition. The application discloses 12 numbers of documents which are sought to be produced by way of discovery by the petitioners/defendants. The papers include voter-list, membership fees, election ballet papers, electoral role, election schedule and marked voter list etc. Out of the aforesaid 12 documents, the documents given at serial No. 1, 3 to 5, 7 and 10 to 12 are definitely such documents which appear to be wholly relevant to resolve controversies  existing between the parties in the present suit and more especially for the purposes to decide temporary injunction matter pending before the court below. The other documents at Serial No. 2, 6, 8 and 9 are not relevant documents for the purposes of just and proper disposal of the present suit. More especially the  dispute between

                                       (Contd.....................2)

                                      -2-

the parties which are to be resolved while disposing of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. Thus, the orders impugned as such do not appear to be unjustified except to the extent that the aforesaid documents which have been described as not relevant for the present. The order as such may be modified to that extent.

The petition is disposed of as above and the petitioners have to in compliance to the impugned order, produce the documents given at the aforesaid Serial No. 1, 3 to 5, 7 and 10 to 12 of the application (annexure-7 to the writ petition). The other documents mentioned in the said application may be withheld for the time being and the court may summon those documents from the petitioners when they are necessarily required.

21.2.2006

SUA/10612-06


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.