Telangana High Court
G.V.Srinivasa Rao And Another vs Smt.P.V.Rajalakshmi And 19 Others on 4 March, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.375 OF 2021
&
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.379 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioners/defendants have filed these Civil Revision Petitions aggrieved by the orders dated 31.12.2020 in I.A.No.723 of 2020 in I.A.674 of 2020 in O.S.No.456 of 2015 and in I.A.273 of 2020 in O.S.No.456 of 2015 respectively, on the file of the learned XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
2. The plaintiff has filed these two applications under Order 11 Rule 1, 2 & 8 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') for granting leave to deliver the interrogatories to the counsel for the defendant. Accordingly, both the applications were allowed, plaintiff was permitted to deliver the enclosed interrogatories in I.A.No.674 of 2020 and in O.S.No.456 of 2015 separately as per the docket proceedings dated 31.12.2020. Aggrieved by the same, assailing the orders in I.A.No.723 of 2020 in 2 I.A.No.674 of 2020 in O.S.456 of 2015, CRP.No.375 of 2021 and assailing the orders in I.A.No.273 of 2020 in O.S.No.456 of 2015, C.R.P.No.379 of 2021, are filed.
3. Heard on both sides. The submissions made on either side have received due consideration of this Court.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the original suit.
5. The plaintiff has filed the original suit against the defendants for recovery of suit claim of Rs.81,80,000/- with interest at 24% per annum. The suit was filed only against defendants 1 & 2. Along with the suit, the plaintiff has also filed I.A.No.674 of 2020. During pendency of the suit, when the defendants 1 & 2 have caused their appearance, the plaintiff has filed these two applications i.e. I.A.No.723 of 2020 and I.A.No.273 of 2020 under Order 11 Rule 1, 2 & 8 read with Section 151 C.P.C. praying the Court for leave to deliver the interrogatories to the counsel for the defendants. These two applications were allowed vide separate orders on 31.12.2020, plaintiff was permitted 3 to deliver the enclosed interrogatories to the counsel for defendants and the defendants were directed to file answers by way of affidavit within five (5) days of receiving the interrogatories. The order in IA No.723 of 2020 and IA No.273 of 2020 is assailed by the defendants No.1 & 2 through these Civil Revision Petitions.
6. As per the orders in I.A.No.723 of 2020, the plaintiff has requested the defendants to answer the following interrogatories:-
(i) What is the present address of residence of Sri L.Sambasiva Rao, who is Respondent/Proposed Defendant No.4?
(ii) What is the present address of residence of Ms. Galidevara Pavani Sai Prathyusha, who is Respondent/Proposed Defendant No.17?
(iii) What is the present address of work of Ms.Galidevara Pavani Sai Prathyusha, who is Respondent/Proposed Defendant No.17?
(iv) Is the receipt of notice in above IA to Respondent /Proposed Defendant No.17 by RPAD at the address : "H.No.2-2-1130/26/A/C/5, Prashanth Nagar, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad- 500044" in the knowledge of each of Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 17? If not, please state who doesn't know with reason?
(v) What is the present address of residence of, Smt.P.Vinoda, Respondent No.7 in above I.A.No.674/2020?4
(vi) What is the present living status of Sri P.narasimha Reddy, Respondent No.8 who is husband of Smt.P.Vinoda, Respondent No.7?
(vii) In the case Sri P.narasimha Reddy, Respondent No.8 is deceased, please furnish the names, particulars and address of all Class 1 heirs of Sri P.Narasimha Reddy including their residence/ address for service and date of death of Sri P.Narasimha Reddy.
[The Respondent/Defendant Nos.1 & 2 are required to answer the Interrogatories 1 to 4.
The Respondent/Proposed Defendant No.7 is required to answer the Interrogatories 5 to 7.]
7. Whereas, as per the orders in I.A.273 of 2020, the defendants were ordered to answer the following interrogatories in O.S.456 of 2015:-
(i) What is the Defendants claim with respect to the amount (including Principal and interest) owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff?
(ii) Amongst the claimants of the gifts of the mortgage suit schedule properties directly or indirectly from the defendants i.e. Sri L.Samba Siva Rao, Smt.L.K.Durga Devi and Smt.G.P.S.Prathyusha, who do not have knowledge of this suit?
(iii) Is Sri L.Samba Siva Rao biologically related to the defendants? What is the relation? Is Sri L.Samba Siva Rao alive?
(iv) Is Smt.L.K.Durga Devi biologically related to the defendants? What is the relation? Is Smt.L.K.Durga Devi alive?
(v) Is Smt.G.P.S. Prathyusha biologically related to the
defendants? What is the relation? Is
Smt.G.P.S.Prathyusha alive?
5
(vi) Besides the gifting of mortgage suit properties to Sri
L.Samba Siva Rao, Smt.L.K.Durga Devi and Smt.G.P.S.Prathyusha; what other gifts were made by defendants?
(vii) What is the current occupation and annual income of defendant No.1?
(viii) What movable assets are on the name of defendant No.1?
(ix) What immovable assets are on the name of defendant No.1?
(x) What is the current occupation and annual income of defendant No.2?
(xi) What movable assets are on the name of defendant No.2?
(xii) What immovable assets are on the name of defendant No.2?
[The defendant No.1 is required to answer the interrogatories 1 to 6 and 7 to 9;
The defendant No.2 is required to answer the interrogatories 1 to 6 and 10 to 12]
8. On a perusal of the entire scheme of Section 30 of Civil Procedure Code which is substantive provision and Order XI Rule 1 to 23 which shows that the Court has been clothed with a power to order discovery or permit interrogatories at any time. A close and conjoint reading of these provisions makes it clear that the Court can allow service of interrogatories at any stage of the suit for which it has been conferred wide discretion, but at the same time, 6 such discretion has to be exercised judiciously. The whole purpose of interrogatories is only to seek admission of a party on matter in dispute so that the issues can be accordingly framed minimizing the contentious issues or disputes left for adjudication of the Court with ultimate object of facilitating an early and expeditious disposal of the suit.
9. In the present case, the plaintiffs have filed the original suit for recovery of suit claim against defendants 1 & 2. They have filed the written statement, issues are settled. At this stage, in a suit relating to the year 2015, on 31.12.2020, direction was given to the defendants at the instance of plaintiffs to answer the interrogatories.
10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has relied upon G.Nanchil Kumaran Vs.Govindasa1, whereas the learned counsel for the respondents relied on the principles laid in Smt. Sharda Dhir Vs. Ashok Kumar Makheeja and others2. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the principles laid in the above decisions.
1(1999) 3 MLJ at Page No.660 2 AIR 2003 DELHI at page 288 7
11. Be it stated that on a copious reading of the interrogatories in I.A.674 of 2020 or in O.S.456 of 2015 as extracted above, the plaintiff has only asked about the present address of proposed defendant No.4, address of defendant No.7, details of class-I heirs of defendant No.8, address of defendant No.17 etc. Whereas, in the interrogatories in O.S.456 of 2015, it is questioned as to the defendants claim in respect of the suit amount. It is pertinent to note that defendants have filed their written statement demanding the suit claim. The second question in the interrogatories deals with the relationship of defendants with Durga Devi, Sambasiva Rao and Prathyusha stating whether they have any knowledge of the transaction and also interrogatories 3 to 5 deals with the biological relationship of the plaintiffs/ defendants with those three persons. Similarly, interrogatory No.6 deals with the other properties gifted by the defendants in favour of those three persons, the current occupation of defendant No.1, details of movable assets of defendant No.1, current occupation of defendant No.2 and her assets. As far as the interrogatories as mentioned in I.A.723 of 2020 are 8 concerned, they relate to some other parties though only defendants 1 & 2 are added in the original suit. Through these interrogatories, the plaintiff has requested the information relating to proposed parties without making them as parties to the suit. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion, such interrogatories are beyond the scope of Order XI Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C.
12. Similarly, the interrogatories that are delivered in the original suit in O.S.No.456 of 2015 relates to biological relationship of defendants with Sambasiva Rao, Durga Devi, Prathyusha and the other properties that are left over apart from the mortgaged properties, occupation of defendants 1 & 2, the details of their other movable and immovable properties.
13. The substantive provision under Section 30 of CPC and the provisions of Order XI Rule 1 to 23 are self contained, the entire procedure is explained with the consequences for failure to produce such documents or information.
9
14. Thus, whenever such interrogatories are delivered, the Court before permitting the delivery is expected to go through the interrogatories and if arrives at a conclusion that they are essential to minimize the disputes and triable issues, then only permission has to be accorded to the parties to deliver the interrogatories on the opposite party. However, on such delivery, as per Rule 6 of Order XI, the opposite party on whom interrogatories were delivered , is entitled to raise objections and as per Rule 7, they are entitled to approach the Court to set aside and strike out the interrogatories. Without following such procedure, the interrogatories are challenged through these two revision petitions. In such facts and circumstances of the case, it is open to the trial Court always to change its order and to set-aside or strike out the interrogatories when such objection is raised either under Rule 6 or under Rule 7 of Order XI CPC by the opposite party. As most of the times such information could be gathered in the cross- examination of the witnesses when the written statement is filed and issues are settled.
10
15. It may be stated that though the interrogatories in I.A.No.723 of 2020 and in O.S.456 of 2015 are not relevant, the Court below has simply permitted the plaintiff to deliver the enclosed interrogatories without recording any findings to the effect that such interrogatories are essential to minimize the contentious issues or disputes left for adjudication of the Court as the ultimate object of this provision is to facilitate an early and expeditious disposal of the suit. More particularly, the interrogatories relating to the biological relationship between the parties have no reasonable nexus with the facts of the present case affecting the personal privilege of the defendants as contemplated under Rule 6 of Order XI CPC.
16. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the order dated 31.12.2020 in I.A.No.723 of 2020 in I.A.No.674 of 2020 in O.S.No.456 of 2015 and order dated 31.12.2020 in I.A.No.273 of 2020 in O.S.No.456 of 2015 is not sustainable in view of the fact that as the learned Judge before permitting to deliver the interrogatories, has not recorded whether such interrogatories are required to 11 minimize the contentious issues or disputes left for adjudication of the Court. They are against the spirit of substantive provision in Section 30 in Order XI Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C.
17. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 31.12.2020 is liable to be set-aside. However, the plaintiff is at liberty to serve fresh interrogatories in accordance with the provisions of Order XI Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C relating to the subject matter instead of inquiring about the proposed defendants or the biological relationship with certain individuals or the other properties, assets, occupations of defendants 1 & 2.
18. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The orders dated 31.12.2020 impugned in I.A. No.723 of 2020 in I.A.No.674 of 2020 in O.S.No.456 of 2015 and order dated 31.12.2020 in I.A.No.273 of 2020 in O.S.No.456 of 2015 are hereby set-aside. The Court below is hereby directed to expedite the disposal of the original suit and shall make every endeavour for disposal of the original suit within a period of six (6) months from the date 12 of receipt of the copy of the order. Both the parties to the suit shall cooperate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the original suit as directed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs.
Consequently, Interlocutory Applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY Date: 04.03.2022 Ysk/isn 13 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.375 OF 2021 & CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.379 OF 2021 Date: 04.03.2022 14 Ysk/Isn