Full Text
Translation output
r:
A-51
% 07.7.2011
Present: Mr.Randhir Jain and Ms.Radhika Jain, Advocates for the petitioner.
+CM(M) N0.744/2OII& CM NO.121Q7/2011
*
Impugned order is dated 25.4.2011. The defendants had been served. On the request of the defendants no.l and 2 who had stated that the complete set of document had not been furnished to them a direction had been given to the plaintiff to furnish the y complete set of documents to the counsel for defendants no.l and
A-51
% 07.7.2011
Present: Mr.Randhir Jain and Ms.Radhika Jain, Advocates for the petitioner.
+CM(M) N0.744/2OII& CM NO.121Q7/2011
*
Impugned order is dated 25.4.2011. The defendants had been served. On the request of the defendants no.l and 2 who had stated that the complete set of document had not been furnished to them a direction had been given to the plaintiff to furnish the y complete set of documents to the counsel for defendants no.l and
JUDGMENT
2. It is not as if all the defendants had asked for the documents and a direction has been given against all the defendants. Contention of the petitioner is that he has already furnished all documents to the defendant no.l and 2; the impugned order had noted that the complete set of documents has not been furnished and that is how this direction had been passed. In these circumstances the grievance of the petitioner is absolutely ununderstandable. This petition appears to be clearly an abuse of the process of the court. It is^ dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
INDERMEET KAUR, J. JULY 07, 2011 nandan