The petitioners challenged refusal of discovery and production of documents bearing on an adoption and an old compromise decree.
Judge / Bench — Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnesh Oswal, Judge
Respondents produced the disputed matriculation certificate in the High Court and stated that the decree sought by the petitioners did not exist under the date given; the relevant decree was dated 31 October 1963 and had already been filed. Yet the High Court could not locate its certified copy in the trial record despite an earlier order referring to it. Disposing of the petition, it requested the trial court to check whether that decree was actually on record, with liberty for respondents to file it if absent, and transmitted the produced documents. The substantive adoption and property disputes remain undecided.
Case — Rajni Koul and Others v. Surinder Kumar Bhat and Others · CM(M) No. 245/2023 · 2026-10-14 · Srinagar wing
Advocates appearing — Petitioners — Mr. M. Sultan, Advocate. Respondents — Mr. J. H. Reshi, Advocate.