SUKH DEV Vs. PRAKASH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in these appeals is whether intracourt appeal lies against the order passed of the nature in writ jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge of this Court ?

(2.) In D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.32/2010, the writ petition was labelled under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This appeal is against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.12.2009 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11796/2009. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition after taking note of the fact that by impugned order of the trial court dated 12.10.2009, the trial court directed defendant-petitioner for discovery of documents under Order 11 Rule 14, CPC as according to the plaintiff, those documents were in possession of the defendant. This rejection of the writ petition of the writ petitioner is under challenge in D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.32/2010. In the writ petition, the writ petitioner prayed that the impugned order of the trial court 12.10.2009 may be set aside and the application of the plaintiff-respondent under Order 11 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC may be rejected.

(3.) D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.10/2010 is against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.10.2009 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1034/2009. In this case, the petitioner challenged the order of the trial court dated 19.1.2009 whereby the trial court rejected the defendantpetitioner's application filed under Order 16 Rule 1(3), CPC for summoning two witnesses during the course of defendant's evidence. In the writ petition, the petitioner not only prayed for quashing the order of the trial court dated 19.1.2009 but also prayed that the writ petitioner's application filed under Order 16 Rule 1(3) CPC may be allowed and the witnesses referred in the application may be summoned. The writ petition was labelled as under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.