Delhi District Court
Keshar Devi Baid vs Sh. Ravinder Kumar on 4 March, 2014
In the Court of Pawan Kumar Matto
Additional District Judge01 (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Suit No.1430/2009
In the matter of :
Keshar Devi Baid .....Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Ravinder Kumar .....Defendant
O R D E R
04.03.2014
1. This order of mine will dispose of an application U/o 11 rule 11 r/w/s 151 CPC filed by the defendant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession, damages and mesne profits against the defendant.
3. Whereas, the defendant has filed the application under consideration U/o 11 rule 11 r/w/s 151 CPC, on the averments that defendant / applicant has filed an application u/o 11 rule 1,12&14 r/w/s 151 CPC, which was allowed by this court vide order dated 25.11.2010, for directing to the plaintiff to answer the interrogatories No.1,2,4,5,6&9 of the list of interrogatories on or before 16.12.2010 and since the plaintiff has failed to file the affidavit in respect of the interrogatories in Suit No.1430/2009 Page No.1 of 7 Keshar Devi Baid v. Sh. Ravinder Kumar 04.03.2014 compliance of the order dated 25.11.2010, so, the defendant had already filed an application u/o 11 rule 11 CPC on dated 13.01.2011 for dismissal of the suit for non compliance of the order dated 25.11.2010 and the notice of the said application was issued to the plaintiff. It is further averred that plaintiff has filed an affidavit and copies of some documents in respect to the interrogatories in compliance of the order dated 25.11.2010 passed by this court and the copies thereof were delivered to the counsel for the defendant by post and after going through the affidavit of the plaintiff dated 15.01.2011, it is clear that plaintiff has omitted to answer the interrogatories no.4&5 correctly and sufficiently. It is further averred that plaintiff has stated in her affidavit that her husband Sh. Sampat Baid had purchased the suit property from Smt. Veena @ Veena Tyagi and further stated that other documents of alleged sale were executed in favour of Sh. Sampat Baid apart from GPA dated 07.08.1986 and no such documents which were allegedly executed by Smt. Veena @ Veena Tyagi in favour of Sh. Sampat Baid, have been supplied to the counsel for the defendant nor the same have been filed in this court and plaintiff has not stated in answer to interrogatories no.4 that there are no other documents except GPA dated 07.08.1986 in favour of Sh. Sampat Baid, so, the answer to Suit No.1430/2009 Page No.2 of 7 Keshar Devi Baid v. Sh. Ravinder Kumar 04.03.2014 the same interrogatory is not proper and sufficient. It is further averred that similarly, in respect to the answer of the interrogatory no.5, the plaintiff in para no.4 of her affidavit dated 15.01.2011 has stated that in fact consideration was paid by Sh. Sampat Baid to Veena wife of Sh. Vidya Bhushan and the said fact has been mentioned in the alleged agreement to sell and the plaintiff has not given the date thereof and the said document was neither filed with the affidavit nor the same was supplied to the counsel for the defendant, so, the answer to the same interrogatory is not proper and sufficient. It is further averred that affidavit of the plaintiff in respect of answer of the interrogatories served by this court insufficient as the plaintiff has omitted to answer the interrogatories no. 4&5 and the same affidavit is not in compliance of the order dated 25.11.2010 and there is delay in compliance of the order dated 25.11.2010 and plaintiff has not filed any application for seeking condonation delay and prayed for directing to the plaintiff to answer the interrogatories no.4&5 by way of filing of an affidavit in terms of rule 8 of order 11 CPC and on non filing of the same, the suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed.
4. On the other hand, the plaintiff has filed reply to the said application and contested the same on the grounds inter alia that contents of the application are mischievous, baseless Suit No.1430/2009 Page No.3 of 7 Keshar Devi Baid v. Sh. Ravinder Kumar 04.03.2014 and frivolous averment of the applicant that the plaintiff has omitted to answer the interrogatories no.4&5 or that the same is not answered correctly and sufficiently. It is denied that answer to the interrogatory no.5 is not proper and stated that the same has been properly and adequately replied. It is denied that affidavit dated 15.01.2011 filed by the plaintiff is not in compliance of the order of the court and in order to delay the proceedings and after denying other averments, she has sought rejection of the application under consideration.
5. I have heard the ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record.
6. The Ld. Counsel for the defendant has submitted that plaintiff has failed to comply with the order dated 25.11.2010, so, the defendant has filed an application u/o 11 rule 21 CPC. He has further submitted that the interrogatories no.4&5 were raised qua the documents, but, the proper replies to the interrogatories were not given by the plaintiff. He has further submitted that when this court had examined to the plaintiff on SA on dated 16.07.2013 only then the queries sought by the defendant have been replied by the plaintiff. He has also submitted that unnecessary delay has been caused by the plaintiff. Had the plaintiff given the reply to the same interrogatories in proper manner, the time of the court could Suit No.1430/2009 Page No.4 of 7 Keshar Devi Baid v. Sh. Ravinder Kumar 04.03.2014 be saved and submitted that suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed and plaintiff is also liable to be burdened with cost.
7. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that interrogatories were properly replied. He has also submitted that in view of examination of the plaintiff in the court on dated 16.07.2013, the application filed by the defendant u/o 11 rule 11 CPC in this court does not survive.
8. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record.
9. Perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 25.11.2010 the predecessor of this court had directed to the plaintiff to give the replies to the interrogatories, but, the plaintiff had filed the affidavit and the same interrogatories were not properly replied by the plaintiff and this court had called to the plaintiff, who was examined in the court on dated 16.07.2013 and she has given the statement as under : "S No.1430/09 16.07.13 Statement of Smt. Keshar Devi Baid, aged about 66 years W/o Sh. Sampat Baid, R/o A156, Vivek Vihar PhaseII, Delhi110095 on SA I am plaintiff in the present case. I am 8th class passed. In compliance of the order dated 25.11.2010 passed on an application U/o 11 rule 1,12&14 of CPC. I had filed the affidavit dated 15.01.2011 in answer to the interrogatories as called for vide Suit No.1430/2009 Page No.5 of 7 Keshar Devi Baid v. Sh. Ravinder Kumar 04.03.2014 order dated 25.11.2010. My affidavit is Ex.P1 wherein I have given the details of all the documents which are in my possession pertaining to the suit property and all the said documents have been filed by me on the record. The certified copy of the sale deed dated 02.01.1990 which was filed with the plaint is Ex.P2. Photocopy of agreement for sale dated 07.08.1986 is mark X. Photocopy of receipt dated 07.08.1986 is mark X1. Photocopy of WILL dated 07.08.1986 is mark X2. Photocopy of a GPA dated 07.08.1986 executed by Smt. Veena in favour of Sampat Baid is mark X3. I have no other document pertaining to the title of suit property in my possession and I undertake that I would not file any other document in the present case pertaining to the title of the suit property and I will rely upon the documents which are already filed by me on the record. I do not have any other document pertaining to the suit property executed in favour of my husband Sampat Baid and no other document exists except the aforesaid GPA executed by Smt. Veena in favour of my husband i.e. mark X3.
sd
RO&AC ( Pawan Kumar Matto )
sd Additional District Judge03
(East)/KKD/Delhi/16.07.13"
10. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has submitted that in view of examination of the plaintiff on dated 16.07.2013 all the material facts have been revealed by the plaintiff. Since he has submitted that in this process, the plaintiff succeeded in causing unnecessary delay in the present matter, so, he has half heartedly argued on this application u/o 11 rule 11 CPC. No doubt that the plaintiff has not given the proper replies to the interrogatories and she did not comply with the order dated 25.11.2010 in its letter and spirit, but at the same time Suit No.1430/2009 Page No.6 of 7 Keshar Devi Baid v. Sh. Ravinder Kumar 04.03.2014 this court is of the considered view that in view of such conduct of the plaintiff, the suit of the plaintiff cannot be dismissed. Since the ld. Counsel for the defendant has also admitted that with the examination of the plaintiff true picture has come before the court. No doubt that the plaintiff has succeeded in causing unnecessary delay in the present matter. As earlier she had not given the proper replies to the interrogatories and she has waisted considerable time of her, as well as, of the court, which could be saved, but, she did not resort to do so. Since the plaintiff has been examined by this court and with the examination of the plaintiff, the material facts sought to be clarified by the defendant have been revealed. So, in the considered opinion of this court, the suit of the plaintiff cannot be dismissed.
11. In the above discussion, the application filed by the defendant U/o 11 rule 11 CPC does not survive, so, the same is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the open Court on 04.03.2014 ( Pawan Kumar Matto ) Additional District Judge01 (East)/KKD/Delhi / 04.03.14 Suit No.1430/2009 Page No.7 of 7 Keshar Devi Baid v. Sh. Ravinder Kumar 04.03.2014