BHATIA DISTRIBUTORS Vs. BOSCH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 1-3-2011 passed by the Trial Court by which application preferred by the respondents under Order 11 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed.

(2.) Facts necessary for decision of the controversy involved in the instant writ petition briefly stated are that the respondents have filed an application under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application under Order 11 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which the respondents sought the details of the property held by the petitioner. The Trial Court though by the impugned order held that the burden is on the person who moves the application under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure to furnish the particulars, yet the respondent/plaintiff is not expected to know the details of the property of the petitioners/defendants.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Trial Court suffers from the error apparent on the face of the record. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the order has been passed by the Trial Court in exercise of power under Section 151 of the CPC and the plaintiff is not expected to know the details of the properties which are held by the defendants.