Civil Revision No.4477 of 2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4477 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision:21.04.2009 Northern India Motion Pictures Association .............Petitioner Vs. Harjit Singh etc. ............Respondents Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The revision is against an order permitting interrogatories to be taken by the plaintiff against the defendants. This came to be done in a pending suit after the plaintiff was unable to secure the production of documents in the custody of defendants, which were said to be bulky and voluminous and hence not capable of being produced. 2. The admitted case is that the plaintiff was only allowed to inspect the documents and even the copies of documents were not permitted to be taken. The Court, which passed the order on the application filed by the plaintiff had merely stated that having regard to the nature of the suit and the reliefs claimed, the interrogatories Civil Revision No.4477 of 2001 (O&M) -2- setting out five questions were required to be answered except question No.4. The Court has only stated that in respect of interrogatory No.4, an option was to be given to the defendant whether or not to reply. 3. The order passed by the Court below in a pending suit, which was merely to facilitate gathering of particulars that could normally cut short the time span of enquiry cannot be interfered in revision. Indeed, it is an irony that a procedure that was meant to save the time of the court from having to require the parties to produce documents and subject the parties to a prolonged trial and instead to secure answers to interrogatories on affidavits has itself resulted in a further prolongation of proceeding by the matter gathering dust in the portals of this Court since 2001. I find no merit in the civil revision petition. Accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 21, 2009 Pankaj*