Revision against an order allowing interrogatories. Court held intervention in procedural orders designed to speed up evidence collection is not warranted. Dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
Civil Revision No.4477 of 2001 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.4477 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision:21.04.2009
Northern India Motion Pictures Association
.............Petitioner
Vs.
Harjit Singh etc. ............Respondents
Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate for the respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
-.-
K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL)
Civil Revision No.4477 of 2001 (O&M) -2-
setting out five questions were required to be answered except question No.4. The Court has only stated that in respect of interrogatory No.4, an option was to be given to the defendant whether or not to reply.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
April 21, 2009 Pankaj*
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere in revision with an order permitting the taking of interrogatories to facilitate the gathering of particulars.
Northern India Motion Pictures Association
Harjit Singh
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
