PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Fiji

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Fiji >> 2022 >> [2022] FJHC 796

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

  Download original PDF


Jogia v Kumar [2022] FJHC 796; HBC340.2014 (4 August 2022)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION
CIVIL ACTION NO.: HBC 340 of 2014


BETWEEN : BHARAT JOGIA
FIRST PLAINTIFF


: MARUTI JEWELLERY LIMITED
SECOND PLAINTIFF


AND : PRAKASH KUMAR
FIRST DEFENDANT


: DUKSHA KALYAN t/a REEMA’S FASHION

GARMENT and NU TOUCH
SECOND DEFENDANT


APPEARANCES/REPRESENTATION
PLAINTIFFS : Ms. S. Prasad [Neel Shivam Lawyers]
DEFENDANTS : Mr. O’Driscoll on instruction [Maqbool & Company]
RULING BY : Acting Master Ms Vandhana Lal
DELIVERED ON : 04 August 2022


INTERLOCUTORY RULING


  1. The Plaintiffs seeks orders for the Defendants’ statement of defence to be struck out and a judgment be entered for them.

This application is made pursuant to Order 24 Rule 16 of the High Court Rules and is supported by an affidavit sworn by Bharat Jogia on 26th October 2020.


  1. According to the Plaintiffs, despite there being orders made for filing of affidavit verifying list of documents, the Defendants have failed to file and serve their affidavit verifying list of documents thus delaying the fair trial and are said to be abusing the process of the court.

The Plaintiffs claim to be prejudiced as the matter is pending since 2014, hence their application for striking out of the defence.


  1. The Defendants’ counsel submits there were 3 summons for direction filed and orders were made on each application.

The Defendants accordingly filed their affidavit verifying list of documents as follows:

- On 20th October 2015;
- On 22nd May 2017; and
- Supplementary list in August 2017.

Hence there is no need to file any further list.


Order 24 rule 16 relied by Plaintiff is of no relevance as it is designed for documents that are not before the Court at the hearing stage. Parties can now proceed for pre-trial conference.


  1. Upon perusing the file, I make following observation:
  2. It is due to an oversight summon for direction has been filed 03 times and orders made 03 on all three occasions.
  3. I do not find there to be defiance of orders by the Defendants. Their counsel informs the Court that the Defendants have filed their affidavit verifying list of documents previously and intend to rely on the same.
  4. Hence its only prudent that parties complete discovery on the affidavit verifying list of documents previously filed in this matter and convene a pre-trial conference.
  5. Orders on summon for direction last made on 17th February 2020 and not complied with is extended for compliance.
  6. No orders are made for cost on Plaintiff’s application.

.........................
Vandhana Lal [Ms]
Acting Master
At Suva.


04 August 2022


TO:

  1. Suva High Court Civil Action No. HBC 340 of 2014;
  2. Neel Shivam Lawyers, Solicitors for the Plaintiffs;
  3. Maqbool & Company, Solicitors for the Defendants.


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2022/796.html