HIRALAL Vs. LAXMI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the Order dated December 5,1992 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar directing the plaintiff to deliver interrogatories for the examination of the defendant-petitioner.

(2.) THE non-petitioner had filed the suit against the petitioner Interrogatories on the ground that defendant No. l has parted with the suit premises in favour of defendant No. 2 and that defendant No. 1 had acquired another shop in the new market. THE defendant in their written statement had denied the allegation regarding parting with possession of the suit premises on the ground that both the firms are joint family Firms and members of the joint family are Partners of the two Firms. Regarding the allotment of new shop in the new market, it was stated by the defendant that it is acquired only for additional work and which is owned by him as one of the partnres. THE plaintiff in his rejoinder pleaded that the new shop has been let out to third party by taking premium. THE name of the parties in whose favour the new shop was let out was Firm Omprakash Pawan Kumar. On the pleadings of the parties, Issues were framed. Relevant for the present purpose are Issues No. 2 and 3 which requires enquiry into comoparative hardship and satisfaction of plaintiffs need by partial evication, in case decree is passed and issue No. 6 which related to sub-letting of the suit shop.

(3.) THE aforesaid view amply supports the conclusion, which I have arrived at.