24 May 2024 Civil Suits >> Civil & Consumer Law  

Imagine facing a lawsuit with millions of rupees at stake, only to discover a court order allowing an inspection of your property without your input. This is exactly the scenario a recent defendant encountered in a commercial civil suit. But in a surprising turn of events, the court offered a lifeline – a chance to rectify the situation and potentially mitigate the impact of the inspection.

Background:

The plaintiff filed a commercial suit against the defendant for Rs. 8,91,25,000/-. They also sought a temporary injunction to prevent the defendant from transferring machinery allegedly relevant to the case. The defendant argued that the lower court appointed a court commissioner to inspect their premises without giving them a chance to file a written statement.

Court's Decision:

The court dismissed the defendant's petition but offered them some relief. The court acknowledged the defendant's concern about not being heard but did not find any clear error in the lower court's decision to allow the inspection.

However, the court placed a crucial limitation on the inspection order. The court directed the lower court not to consider the court commissioner's report when deciding the injunction application. This means the inspection results won't immediately impact the temporary injunction request. Further, the court also provided the defendant with an opportunity to address the inspection later. The defendant can file objections to the court commissioner's report if they believe it contains inaccurate information. The court left open the possibility of the report being considered during the main suit proceedings.

Key Takeaways:

This case emphasizes the importance of actively participating in legal matters from the outset. While the court allowed the defendant to rectify their initial absence, a delay in filing a written statement could have potentially disadvantaged them. The case also demonstrates the court's discretion in managing evidence during litigation. The court allowed the inspection to proceed but limited its immediate impact on the case.