SHYAM GOENKA Vs. ZEVRAT PREMSONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner impleaded as defendant is aggrieved by an order dated 9.11.2006. The order has disposed of an application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to defend. Holding that the application seeking leave to defend discloses no triable issue and hence was liable to be dismissed, surprisingly enough, learned Trial Judge concluded the order by requiring the plaintiff to prove its case. It is urged in the petition that there is a hiatus in the reasoning and the concluding part of the impugned order.

(2.) I would have expected the plaintiff of the suit to have come to this Court with tears in his eyes in as much as, after holding that the defendant failed to project a case which entitled it to leave to defend, it was the plaintiff who was still called upon to lead evidence. Be that as it may, since the defendant approached this Court, noting the apparent conflict in the reasoning and the conclusion in the impugned order, notice was issued.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , instant petition has been considered with reference to, as if, vide impugned order the leave to defend has been declined. The concluding direction in the impugned order has been ignored.