DARPAN KWATRA Vs. RAMESH CHANANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT civil revision petition has been filed against the order dated 4th October, 2008 whereby the respondent/plaintiff"s application under Order 6 rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 has been allowed and the petitioner/defendant"s application under Order 7 Rules 14 and 17 has been dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the application under order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 has been allowed without hearing him. He has also drawn my attention to the order dated 18th May, 2007 whereby the matter was adjourned to facilitate the petitioner to file documents in support of his plea that Sh. Ramesh Kwatra was the proprietor of M/s. Bharat Plastic industries. He further states that though the trial court looked at form ST -35 dated 22nd March, 2006, but it did not look into other correspondence as well as other ST-35"s which clearly shows that Sh. Ramesh Kwatra was the proprietor of the firm to the respondent"s knowledge for a long time.

(3.) ON a perusal of the order dated 4th October, 2008 passed by the additional and Sessions judge (in short "adj"), I find that the same is rather a detailed one and it takes into account even the arguments being advanced today before me that the respondent-plaintiff was all throughout aware that Sh. Ramesh kwatra is a proprietor of M/s. Bharat Plastic industries. Consequently, in my opinion, the impugned order has been passed after hearing the petitioner.