VIPIN KUMAR Vs. WAHID AHMAD QURESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) This petition has been filed for the following relief : "i). Set-aside the order dtd. 2/9/2023 passed by the learned Addl District Judge, Court No.12, Meerut in Civil Appeal No.157 of 2010 (Vipin Vs. Dr. Wahid Ahmad Qureshi (deceased) & others (Annexure No.14 to this Petition) and the applications, Paper Nos.225 Ga & 229 Ga (Annexure Nos.8 & 11 to this petition) of the defendant/petitioner may be allowed."

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondents instituted Original Suit No.823 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut against the defendant-petitioner for specific performance of an agreement to sell dtd. 7/1/1975 executed between the father of the plaintiffs-respondents and the defendant-petitioner. The aforesaid suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement. The Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut Court No.6 vide the judgment and decree dtd. 27/8/2010 decreed the suit. The defendant-petitioner filed Civil Appeal No.157 of 2010 challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 27/8/2010 passed by the trial court. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant-petitioner gave a notice under Order 11 Rule 16 C.P.C. for inspection of documents mentioned in paragraph no. 4, 8 & 9 of the plaint of O.S. No. 823 of 2000. The plaintiffsrespondents contested the application by filing their objections to the effect that document referred in paragraph no. 4 of the plaint are already part of record and no documents are referred in paragraph nos. 8 & 9 of the plait. Since, the plaintiffs-respondents failed to comply with the notice under Order XI Rule 16 C.P.C., the petitioner filed application Paper No.225 Ga under Order XI Rule 21 C.P.C. with a prayer to dismiss the aforesaid suit for noncompliance of the provisions contained in Order XI Rule 16 C.P.C. This application was also contested by the plaintiffs-respondents by filing objections inter alia pleading that the documents are already on record. Then the petitioner moved another application Paper No.229 Ga with the prayer that the plaintiffs-respondents be directed to specify as to when the aforesaid documents were filed. Both these applications filed by the petitioner being Paper No.225 Ga under Order XI Rule 21 and application No.229 Ga were considered and dismissed by the lower appellate court by its judgment and order dtd. 2/9/2023, hence the present petition.