LAWS(APH)-2009-3-55

NEERA AGARWAL Vs. MAHENDER KUMAR AGARWAL

Decided On March 13, 2009
NEERA AGARWAL Appellant
V/S
MAHENDER KUMAR AGARWAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S. R. Ashok, learned Senior Counsel representing revision petitioner in all these civil revision petitions and Sri Prakash Reddy, learned senior Counsel representing respondents in all these civil revision petitions.

(2.) SRI S. R. Ashok, learned Senior counsel representing the revision petitioner in all these civil revision petitions had taken this Court through the grounds which had been raised in these civil revision petitions and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge had not exercised the discretion properly and inasmuch as judicious approach had not been adopted by the learned Judge and further in the light of the facts and circumstances well explained since the reliefs prayed for in these applications being highly essential for establishing the case of the revision petitioner, the dismissal of these applications cannot be sustained. The learned Senior Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the respective portions of the orders under challenge, the reliefs prayed for in these applications and ultimately would maintain that since these are highly essential to establish the stand taken by the revision petitioner and even if these applications are allowed inasmuch as no serious prejudice would be caused to the respondent in the facts and circumstances of the case, the civil revision petitions to be allowed.

(3.) PER contra, Sri Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent in all these applications would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Judge, these are not fit matters to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of india. The Counsel also would maintain that there is no question of sending a xerox copy to an expert for the purpose of examination. Even otherwise inasmuch as these applications had been thought of by the revision petitioner only with a view to further delay the disposal of the main matter, inasmuch as these applications are not bona fide, these applications are liable to be dismissed. The learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.