Kerala High Court
Sarojini Prabhu vs Smt.Valsala
Author: V.Chitambaresh
Bench: V.Chitambaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2012/12TH SRAVANA 1934
OP(C).No. 730 of 2011 (O)
-------------------------
I.A.NO.1728/2010 IN OS.NO.449/2008 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA
------------------------
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:
----------------------------------------------------------------
1. SAROJINI PRABHU, AGED 68,
W/O.SWARGATHU MADATHIL LATE RAJAGOPALA PRABHU,
ARAKKULAM DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE,
KODUNGALLOOR TALUK.
2. SREEKUMAR, AGED 40,
S/O.SWARGATHU MADATHIL LATE RAJAGOPALA PRABHU,
ARAKKULAM DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE,
KODUNGALLOOR TALUK.
3. SREEKANTH, AGED 38,
S/O.SWARGATHU MADATHIL LATE RAJAGOPALA PRABHU,
ARAKKULAM DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE,
KODUNGALLOOR TALUK. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY
BY 1ST PETITIONER SAROJINI PRABHU.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SMT.VALSALA, AGED ABOUT 74,
W/O.LATE RAJANANDA PAI, SHYAMRAJ HOUSE,
KEETHOLI DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE,
KODUNGALLOOR TALUK. 680 664.
2. NITHYANANDA PAI, AGED ABOUT 54,
S/O.LATE RAJANANDA PAI, SHYAMRAJ HOUSE,
KEETHOLI DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE,
KODUNGALLOOR TALUK. 680 664.
3. SATCHITHANANDA PAI, AGED ABOUT 51,
S/O.LATE RAJANANDA PAI, SHYAMRAJ HOUSE,
KEETHOLI DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE,
KODUNGALLOOR TALUK. 680 664.
sts 2/-
-2-
OP(C)NO.730/2011
4. SMT.SHYLAJA ANANDA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 46,
D/O.LATE RAJANANDA PAI, SHYAMRAJ HOUSE,
KEETHOLI DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR
TALUK. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PRAGATHI VIHAR
HOSTEL, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-03
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY 2ND PETITIONER
NITHYANANDA PAI.
R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
SMT.P.R.REENA
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 03-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
sts
OP(C)NO.730/2011
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE IRINJALAKUDA IN
IA.1728/10 IN O.S.449/08 DATED 18/11/10
P2 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN IA.1728/10 DATED 26/5/2010
SUPPLYING INTEROGATORIES
P3 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS TO EXT.P2 DATED
13/7/2010
P4 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 26/1/07
P5 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS
P6 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.748/09
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO.JUDGE
sts
V.CHITAMBARESH,J.
= = = = = = = = = = =
O.P(C) No.730 of 2011
= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = =
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The suit is one for a decree directing the defendants to execute a transfer deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the property scheduled to the plaint within a time fixed by court. There is also an additional prayer directing the execution of a transfer deed through Court in the event of the failure of the defendants to execute the sale. The transfer (conveyance) deed speaks of obligations and counter obligations to be performed by either parties.
2. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants have only denied the execution of the agreement to execute a conveyance deed and have not disputed the non performance of the obligations. The defendants on the other hand contend that many of the obligations required to be performed by the plaintiffs remained unperformed and that they have not at any rate executed the suit agreement.
2. The court below has by the order impugned granted 2 leave to the defendants to serve interrogatories on the plaintiffs under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A reading of the interrogatories reveal that they pertained to matters in question in the suit which have a close nexus with the pleading of the parties therein. The power to grant leave to serve interrogatories can be exercised by the Court to elicit information which are within the special knowledge of one of the parties to the suit. Reference in this connection to the following decisions are apposite.
i) Sree Padmanabha Dasa Marthanda Varma vs. Moolam Thirunal Rama Varma 1998(1)KLT 113.
ii) W.S Insulators of India vs. Power Systems and Projects 1998(1) KLT 297
iii) Balan vs. Central Bank of India (ILR 2000(1) Ker.322
3. It is of course true that the court below has not reflected the relevancy of the interrogatories sought to be served on the plaintiffs in the order impugned. The court below has granted leave merely for the reason that the plaintiffs would not be put to any prejudice by answering interrogatories . The fact that the order of the court below is unsatisfactory is not a reason enough 3 to set it at knot in this jurisdiction. A reference to the pleadings and the interrogatories reveal that the court below has not erred in granting leave to the defendants to serve interrogatories on the plaintiffs.
4. I however add that it is opened to the plaintiffs to contend that the materials sought to be elicited are not material for the purpose of this case in answer to be filed in the form of an affidavit to the interrogatories . The plaintiffs in other words are entitled to invoke the provisions of Rule 6 and 7 of Order 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in objecting to the interrogatories while answering them. It is for the court to decide as to whether the objections to the interrogatories are tenable or there arises a deed to set aside or strike out the interrogatories under the circumstances. The plaintiffs are given a period of three weeks to answer interrogatories by the defendants pursuant to the order impugned.
5. Reserving this right of the plaintiffs, the order of the court below is affirmed and the Original petition is disposed of .
V.CHITAMBARESH.
JUDGE smm 4 5