Jharkhand High Court
Sumit Kumar Agrawal Alias Sumit P Puria vs Marwari Panchayat Through Its General ... on 13 February, 2017
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P.(C) No. 710 of 2016
Sumit Kumar Agrawal @ Sumit P. Puria ....... Petitioner
Versus
1. Marwari Panchayat, Chas, Bokaro
2. M/s P. Puria. ........ Respondents
........
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
...
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhaiya V. Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents :
...
04/13.02.2017: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bokaro, by the impugned order dated 7th December 2015 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No.06/2011, has rejected the application filed under Order XI Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. Petitioner is the defendant no.2 in the Suit. The issues in the Suit have been framed on 24 th January 2013. Much thereafter on 12th May 2015 this application under Order XI Rule 1 and 2 seeking answers to the following interrogatories was moved by the defendant/petitioner herein :-
"1. How many shops/premises/commercial spaces belong to the plaintiff are situated around Laxmi Narayan Mandir ?
2. How many shops/premises/commercial spaces belonging to the plaintiff and situated around Laxmi Narayan Mandir fell vacant since the time the present suit has been filed.
3. How many of those/premises and commercial spaces which fell vacant since the filing of this have been let out to new tenants under fresh tenancy ?
4. How many shops/premises and commercial spaces which fell vacant since the filing of this suit are still lying vacant ?
5. Is there a big vacant space on the adjacent east of Laxmi Narayan Mandir and the same is used for accommodating devotes during peak hours ?"
Learned trial court considered the submissions of the parties on the instant petition and arrived at an opinion that provisions of Order XI Rule 1 and 2 can be confined to facta probanda (facts constituting the other party's case) forming part of discovery of facts, but not to facta probantia (facts constituting evidence). It was of the opinion that interrogatories are to be used to obtain admission of material fact of a case from the opponents for the purpose of maintaining his own case or for destroying the case of the adversary and the main object of interrogatories is to save expenses and shorten the litigation, but the power to order interrogatories should be used with considerable care and caution, so that it is not abused by any party. Upon consideration of the attendant facts and more importantly that the Suit had reached to an advanced stage and the defendant had apparently full knowledge about the opponents case, it has declined to allow leave for serving the interrogatories on the opponents at that stage of the Suit. Accordingly the application was rejected. Amendment sought under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code by the defendant however was allowed by the learned Judge.
The Suit has reached to an advanced stage. In the instant case after the pleadings were complete, issues have also been framed in January 2013 itself and the case was at the stage of evidence. The endeavour of the defendant to elicit answer to the interrogatories quoted herein above essentially amounted to seeking answers on facts constituting evidence which are to be proved or demolished by way of evidence between the parties. The learned trial court has therefore rightly declined to grant leave to the defendant to serve interrogatories upon the plaintiff for seeking answers which may be in relation to the facts constituting evidence. The exercise of judicial discretion on the part of learned trial court cannot be said to suffer from error of jurisdiction or perversity where interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/