- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 14 November 2024
- Bench
- Neena Bansal Krishna
- Case no.
- C.R.P. 333/2024
Judgment
O R D E R %
14.11.2024 CM APPL.66546/2024 (Exemption)
¶1Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
¶2The Application stands disposed of. C.R.P. 333/2024
¶3The Revision Petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' hereinafter), has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner for setting aside the Order dated 25.09.2024 with the prayer that the Petitioner be allowed to lead the evidence on the basis of the documents filed and already taken on record vide Order dated 27.07.2016.
¶4Briefly stated, the Petitioner had moved an Application under Order 18 read with Section 151 CPC. He was directed to file the detailed list of documents, which were filed vide Order dated 19.03.2015 and which was rejected vide Order dated 22.12.2021.What emerges from the record is, that the Plaintiff had been permitted to file certain documents vide Order dated This is a digitally signed order. 19.03.2015, which got filed on
27.07.2016. Thereafter, he moved subsequent Application for taking on record the documents in the year 2019, which was dismissed vide Order dated 22.12.2021 and the Order was upheld by this Court vide Order dated 03.06.2022. The only grievance being agitated on behalf of the Revisionist/Plaintiff is that those documents, which were taken on record vide Order dated 27.07.2016, may be permitted to be proved, in accordance with law. The Order is absolutely clear that it only the documents, which were filed subsequently in 2019, that cannot be permitted to be taken on record.
¶5With these observations, the Plaintiff is at liberty to prove the documents permitted to be taken on record vide Order dated 16.09.2019, by way of evidence.
¶6There is no merit in the present Revision Petition, which is hereby dismissed.
¶7The Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly along with the pending Application. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J NOVEMBER 14, 2024/RS This is a digitally signed order.
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.R.P. 333/2024, CM APPL. 66545/2024 (stay) VINEET GOEL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mahindra Dubey, Advocate. versus RUSHMI GOEL .....Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.