Delhi District Court
Smt. Praneeta Soni vs Panchshila H Ospitality on 20 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. BRIJESH KUMAR GARG:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CENTRAL08, DELHI.
SUIT No. 263/2008
SMT. PRANEETA SONI PLAINTIFF
VS.
PANCHSHILA H OSPITALITY
VENTURES LTD. & ORS. DEFENDANT
20.05.2011
ORDER.
This order shall dispose off the application of the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 1 R/W Section 151 CPC dated 20.5.2010.
2. It has been stated in the application that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for ejectment and in written statement, the defendants have taken several pleas regarding the oral agreement to split the tenancy and nonreceipt of notices dated 6.3.2006, 15.11.2007 and 4.2.2008. It is further stated that to rebut the contentions of the defendants, the plaintiff has filed various documents and has prepared some interrogatories, which are to be SUIT No. 263/2008 Page 1 of 7 delivered to the defendant so that, the controversy between the parties is narrowed down and may expose the false and baseless defence of the defendants. It has been prayed that the plaintiff may be granted the leave to deliver the interrogatories No. 1 to 42 for answer by the defendants by way of a sworn affidavit.
3. No reply to the present application has been filed by the defendant No. 3 & 4 despite opportunity.
4. In reply to the application, it has been stated by defendant No. 1 & 2 that the interrogatories proposed to be delivered to the defendants, are not relevant to the dispute and since, the issues have not been framed till date, the application is premature. It is further stated that some of the interrogatories are irrelevant to the present dispute and other interrogatories have been raised to scandalise the issue. It has been prayed that the present application be dismissed with exemplary cost.
5. Sh. Deepak Gupta and Sh. Arvind Kumar, Advocates, for the plaintiff and Sh. Ravinder Malik for defenant No. 1 & 2 have addressed their arguments on the present application. None has appeared for defendant No. 3 & 4, even to address the arguments.
6. I have carefully gone through the case file and I have SUIT No. 263/2008 Page 2 of 7 given my considered thoughts to the arguments addressed by the Ld. counsels for the parties.
7. It is a well settled law that the object and purpose of serving interrogatories is to enable a party to acquire information from its opponent, for the purpose of maintaining his own case or for destroying the case of the other party and the provisions of Order 11 CPC are intended to curtail the evidence, thereby, expediting the trial of the suit. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Sharda Dhir Vs. Ashok Kumar Makhija & Ors., reported as 99(2202) DLT 350", as under: "9. ....The application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 1,CPC. This rule allowed the Court to grant leave to any of the party of the suit to deliver interrogatories in writing for examination of the opposite party relating to any matter in question in the suit. The object of this rule is that a party knows the nature of his opponent's case before hand in order to met it at the hearing. Indeed, he is not entitled to know the fact which constitute evidence to prove the opponent's case. The nature of the case of the parties is disclosed in their respective pleadings but in a given case, the pleadings may not sufficiently disclose the nature of the parties' case. In order to make good deficiency this rule has been enacted. It is now well settled that administering of interrogatories is to be encouraged as it is a means of obtaining admissions of parties and tends to shorten litigation. As a general rule, the interrogatory should be allowed, whether the answer to them would either SUIT No. 263/2008 Page 3 of 7 strengthen the case of the party administering them or to destroy the case of the adversary. The court should not be hypertechnical at the stage of the service of the interrogatories. This rule is to be used liberally whenever it could shorten the litigation and serve the interest of justice. Indeed, it cannot be used as a means of obtaining information which may be admissible during the oral cross examination of a party and his witnesses. Interrogatories cannot be disallowed merely because the party interrogating has other means of proving the facts in question. One of the important purpose of interrogatories is to obtain admission of material fact of a case. Under this rule, the interrogatories may be served with the leave of the Court by one party to the other in a suit: (1) to ascertain the nature of his opponent's case. The interrogatories which do not relate to any matter in question involved in the suit, indeed, would be deemed irrelevant even though they might be admissible in oral crossexamination of the witnesses. Rule 6 or Order 11 makes it further clear. It provides that objection to answer an interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bone fide for the purpose of the suit, or with the matter inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage or on the ground of privilege, or on any other ground will be taken on the affidavit in answer. Leave to deliver interrogatories does not imply an order to answer them and any objection to answer can be taken under the Rule. The Court is required to decide whether the appellant should be allowed to interrogate the other side, but it is not to determine what question should the opposite party be compelled to answer.
10. As observed above at the preliminary stage of hearing on the application the court is required to decide whether the applicant should be allowed to interrogate the other side, but is not to determine what question should the opposite party be compelled to SUIT No. 263/2008 Page 4 of 7 answer. Interrogatories may then be served o n the other party for his to that on affidavit. The party, who has been served with interrogatories, will then answer the interrogatories on affidavit or raise objections about the relevancy or they being of scandalous nature, irrelevant, not bona fide, or not to be answered on the ground of privilege etc., in answer. The court then may consider and dispose of the interrogatories. It will not for the Court at this stage of granting leave to consider what particular questions the party interrogated should be compelled to answer. Proper time for considering that question is after the party interrogated has filed its affidavit in answer.
8. "In Jamaitrai Bishansarup Vs. Rai Bahadur Motilal ChamariaAIR 1960 Calcutta 536, the Calcutta High Court laid down the principle as to when interrogatories is to be allowed and observed that the administering of interrogatories is to be encouraged because they not infrequently bring an action to an end at an earlier stage to the advantage of all parties concerned. It also quoted the following observations of Cotton L.J. in Attorney General Vs. Gaskill (1982) 20 Ch. D. 519:
"The right to discovery remains the same, that is to say, a party has a right to interrogate with a view to obtaining an admission from his opponent of everything which is material and relevant to the issue raised on the pleadings. It was said in argument that it is not discovery where the plaintiff himself already knows the fact but that is a mere play on the work 'discovery'. Discovery is not limited to giving the plaintiff a knowledge of that which he does not know, but includes the getting an admission of anything which he has to prove on any issue which is raised between him and the defendant. To say SUIT No. 263/2008 Page 5 of 7 that the pleadings have raised issues and that therefore the interrogatories should not be allowed is an entire fallacy. The object of the pleadings is to ascertain what the issues are, the object of interrogatories is not to learn what the issues are, but to see whether the party who interrogates cannot obtain an admission from his opponent which will make the burden of proof easier than it otherwise would have."
9. Similarly, Keral High Court, in the case of P. Balan Vs. Central Bank of India, AIR 2000 Kerala 24, restated the law by observing that the object and purpose of serving interrogatories is to enable a party to require information from his opponent for the purpose of maintaining his own case or for destroying the case of the adversary. The answering of the interrogatories might save expenses and shorten the litigation by enabling a party to obtain from the other side information as to material facts regarding the questions in dispute or issues raised or to obtain admission of facts which the plaintiff has to prove on any issue. Answering the interrogatories might often shorten the trial proceedings and save the time of the Court and parties besides saving expenses for summoning witnesses, documents and the like. As a general rule, therefore, interrogatories are to be allowed whenever the answer to them will serve either to help the party in proving his case or to destroy the case of the adversary. The power is not meant to be confined within narrow limits. It should be used liberally whenever it can shorten the litigation and serve the interest of justice."
10. In view of the legal preposition , as discussed above, the present application is, hereby, allowed and it is, hereby, directed that SUIT No. 263/2008 Page 6 of 7 the defendant No. 1 & 2 shall submit their replies to interrogatories No. 1 to 36 and 36 to 42 by way of sworn affidavits. The defendant No. 3 & 4 shall submit the replies to the interrogatories No. 9, 28, 29 & 32 to 36 by way of sworn affidavits. The application is disposed off accordingly.
Announced in the open court on this 20th day of May, 2011.
BRIJESH KUMAR GARG ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE CENTRAL8, DELHI SUIT No. 263/2008 Page 7 of 7 SUIT No.263/2008 20.5.2011 Present: AR for the plaintiff with proxy counsel.
None for the defendants.
Separate order on the application under Order 11 Rule 1 R/W Section 151 CPC dated 20.5.2010 has been passed, whereby, the said application has been allowed. The defendants are, accordingly, directed to submit their replies to the interrogatories by way of their sworn affidavits. The advance copies of the same be supplied to the plaintiff. Adjourned for further proceedings on 13.7.2011.
BRIJESH KUMAR GARG ADJ/CENTRAL8, DELHI/20.5.2011 SUIT No. 263/2008 Page 8 of 7