Secondly, the grounds number newly urged were number raised by the petitioner plaintiff either before the learned single Judge or in the Memorandum of Appeal or before the Division Bench.
The petitioner plaintiff filed suit No.
This plea of the defendants 1 and 2 was stoutly opposed .
The learned single Judge passed an order dated 25.7.89 allowing I.A., the relevant portion of which reads thus The only prayer is for inspection of the property by Advocate and for taking of photographs of the property by the Advocate and number by any professional photographer, which according to defendants, will facilitate the cross examination of the plaintiff.
by the petitioner plaintiff.
128/83 for damages.
The respondents herein were the defendants in the suit of whom the defendants 1 and 2 filed I.A. No.5253/89 seeking permission of the Court to inspect the property in dispute by the 1st defendant and his companynsel and to take photographs, if necessary, of the said property for the cross examination of the plaintiff.
see numberpossible prejudice to the plaintiff in case such a permission is granted to the defendants.
Ratnavel Pandian, J. This SLP is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th November 1989 of the High Court of Delhi in FAO OS 171/89 in limine dismissing the appeal preferred as against the order of a learned single Judge dated 25.7.1989 sitting on the original side of the High Court.
