Kerala High Court
M.K.Issac vs The State Of Kerala on 22 December, 2010
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP(C).No. 1232 of 2010(O)
1. M.K.ISSAC,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE WILDLIFE WARDEN,
3. THE ASSISTANT WILDLIFE WARDEN,
4. THE FORESTER,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :22/12/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------
O.P(C).No.1232 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this 22nd day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
Learned Special Government Pleader for forest takes notice for respondents.
2. Ext.P8, order dated November 25, 2010 on I.A.No.121 of 2010 in O.S.No.37 of 2009 of the court of learned Munsiff, Punalur is under challenge at the instance of plaintiff in the suit. Petitioner/plaintiff sued for a declaration that no portion of the suit property is part of reserve forest in view of to the title, possession and adverse possession of petitioner and his predecessor-in-interest and for other reliefs. Respondents resisted the suit by Ext.P5, written statement. While so, petitioner filed Ext.P6, application in the court below on 16-01-2010 seeking leave of the court to deliver interrogatories on respondents. Learned Munsiff has passed Ext.P8, order posting I.A.No.121 of 2010 (for leave to deliver interrogatories) along with the suit. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the order defeats the very purpose and object of delivering interrogatories as provided under Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code"). Learned counsel has also O.P(C).No.1232 of 2010 : 2 : referred to me page 638 of Mulla on the Code of Civil Procedure, 7th Edition, Volume II, where it is stated, quoting - Balan Vs. Central Bank of India, Calicut (AIR 2000 Kerala 24) that, "As a general rule, interrogatories are to be allowed whenever the answer to them will serve either to maintain the case of the party administering them or to destroy the case of the adversary,power to serve interrogatories is not meant to be confined within narrow technical limits and it should be used liberally, whenever it can shorten litigation and serve the interest of justice. However the power is to be exercised within certain limits, and with considerable care and caution."
3. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents submits that the dispute is required to be resolved by adducing evidence and enormous materials are required to be produced in evidence. According to the learned Special Government Pleader a case has been registered against petitioner under the Forest Act for (alleged) trespass into the reserve forest .
4. I am not going into the question whether in the case on hand learned Munsiff should grant leave to deliver interrogatories on the respondents and assuming that leave is to be granted on which all questions respondents are to answer. That is a matter which learned Munsiff has to decide having regard to the nature of O.P(C).No.1232 of 2010 : 3 : interrogatories sought to be delivered and the facts and circumstances of the case. But, it is not justifiable or proper to post the application seeking leave to deliver interrogatories to be decided along with the suit. That would defeat the very object of delivering interrogatories as seen from relevant rules under Order XI of the code and the decision referred to above. Rule 2 of Order XI of the Code states that on an application for leave to deliver interrogatories, the particular interrogatories proposed to be delivered shall be submitted to the court and the court shall decide the matter within 7 days from the date of filing of the said application. In view of the above statutory position it was wrong to post the application seeking leave to deliver interrogatories to be decided along with the suit. Ext.P8, order cannot therefore stand and is liable to be set aside. I do so.
Resultantly this petition is allowed and Ext.P8, order is set aside. Learned Munsiff, Punalur is directed to pass appropriate orders as circumstances warranted after hearing counsel on both sides on I.A.No.121 of 2010 as early as possible.
(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-