Partly allowed

Divya Goyal and Another v. Vinay Kumar Mohindra and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Sept 2013CR/2095/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision, the High Court allowed the petitioners deferring production of documents not in their possession but ordering them to produce what is available and file an affidavit, while maintaining the original direction against other defendants. The case was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Required to produce documents in possession and file affidavits stating non-possession of remaining documents.

Divya Goyal and Another Vs Vinay… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No. 2095 of 2013 Date of decision : September 23, 2013

¶3

Divya Goyal and another

¶4

....Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

Vinay Kumar Mohindra and others

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

¶9

Present : Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for respondent no. 1

¶10

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

¶11

Defendants no. 4 and 5 have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 16.3.2013 Annexure P/6 passed by the trial court thereby allowing application Annexure P/4 filed by respondent no. 1-plaintiff for directing the defendants i.e. petitioners and proforma respondents no. 2 to 4 (defendants no. 1 to 3) to produce documents mentioned in the application.

¶12

The plaintiff alleged in the application Annexure P/4 that the defendants in the written statements Annexures P/2 and P/3 have referred to agreement to sell dated 24.3.1987, power of attorney dated 31.1.1986 and sale deeds dated 3.9.2010 and 28.1.2011. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought

¶13

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.24 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶14

Civil Revision No. 2095 of 2013

¶15

-2-

¶16

production of the said documents.

¶17

Defendants no. 4 and 5 by filing reply Annexure P/5 contested the application and denied the averments made therein.

¶18

Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/6 has directed the defendants to produce the aforesaid documents. Feeling aggrieved, defendants no. 4 and 5 have filed this revision petition.

¶19

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioners contended that only sale deeds dated 3.9.2010 and 28.1.2011 are in possession of the petitioners and other documents are not in their possession. However, this grievance of the petitioners can be redressed by directing them to produce the documents (out of summoned documents) which are in their possession and to file affidavits by both the petitioners that they are not in possession of the remaining summoned documents. It is ordered accordingly. It is however, made clear that the liability of defendants no. 1 to 3 to produce the documents which are in their possession out of the summoned documents shall subsist as per impugned order of the trial court.

¶20

Disposed of accordingly.

¶21

September 23, 2013 'tiwana'

¶22

( L.N. Mittal ) Judge

¶23

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.24 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

Divya Goyal and Another v. Vinay Kumar Mohindra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divya Goyal and Another v. Vinay Kumar Mohindra and 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

Daljeet Singh and Ors. Vs Jasbir Kaur and Ors.

Salwinder Singh & Anr. Vs Charanjit Singh & Ors.

Manjit Singh and Ors. Vs Gurtej Dass and Ors.

Arvind Kumar Vs Meenu Sharma

Gurya Ram Vs Sheela Devi and Ors.

(O&M) Rajpal and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.