Dismissed

Bal Krishna Agarwal v. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2018A227/9385/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order rejecting leave to serve interrogatory in a small causes suit. The Court found no illegality in the trial and revisional courts' view that the sought information was in the public domain and the petitioner could obtain it via certified copies.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the interlocutory order rejecting leave to serve interrogatory is dismissed.

Bal Krishna Agarwal Vs District Judge… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9385 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Bal Krishna Agarwal Respondent :- District Judge, Kanpur Nagar And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Tandon

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

The instant petition under Article 227 seeks to challenge a purely interlocutory order passed by the Court of Small Causes in SCC Suit No. 61 of 2010 rejecting the application bearing paper no.117, by which the petitioner had sought leave of the court to serve interrogatory upon the plaintiff-respondents. The trial court has found the application to be part of delaying tactics having been filed seven years after institution of the suit. The trial court has also observed that the question sought to be asked from the plaintiff has no direct relevance to the controversy involved in the suit. The order passed by the trial court has been affirmed by the revisional court. The revisional court, apart from concurring with the findings recorded by the trial court further held that the information sought by the petitioner was in respect of a pending civil suit and all information can be obtained by him by getting certified copy of the relevant records. The revisional court has further observed that cross-examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff is yet to be made by the defendant-petitioner and therefore he will again get opportunity to put all relevant questions to the witnesses during their cross-examination.

¶7

After hearing counsel for the parties at some length, this Court does not find any illegality in the view taken by the courts below. Concededly, all information which is being sought by serving interrogatory is in public domain, being in relation to a pending suit and the dispute involved

¶8

therein. The revisional court has rightly observed that all informations which the petitioner is seeking to obtain by serving interrogatory, is available to him from the public record. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error which may warrant interference in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶9

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶10

Order Date :- 18.12.2018

¶11

skv

Bal Krishna Agarwal v. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bal Krishna Agarwal v. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Prasad Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Aziz Vs State of U.P.

Raghunath Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Kumar Gupta Vs Kailash Chandra Singhal

Zameel Ahmad Vs Civil Judge (Sd)/F.T.C. Budaun and Another

Smt. Sunita Anand and Another Vs the Civil Judge ((F.T.C.)/S.D.), Allahabad and Another