Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avtar Singh vs Gurjit Singh & Ors on 5 November, 2014
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
Civil Revision No.6202 of 2014(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. Civil Revision No.6202 of 2014(O&M)
Date of decision: 05.11.2014
Avtar Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Gurjit Singh and others ...Respondents
2. Civil Revision No.6248 of 2014(O&M)
Avtar Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Gurjit Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral)
Civil Misc. No.24727 of 2014.
Prayer made in this Civil Misc. Application for placing on record plaint and written statement Annexures P/4 and P/5 respectively is allowed.
Annexures P/4 and P/5 are taken on record.
Office to tag the same at appropriate place in the file. The Civil Misc. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.6202 of 2014.
1. The present order shall dispose of Civil Revision No.6202 and 6248 of 2014 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions. However, for dictating of this judgment,the facts have been taken from Civil Revision No.6202 of 2014.
2. Challenge in the present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 22.8.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phillaur wherein the application of the PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA petitioner/defendant filed under Order 11 Rule 8 CPC seeking reply to the 2014.11.26 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.6202 of 2014(O&M) -2- various questions by means of interrogatories has been dismissed.
3. The reasoning given by the trial Court is that the plaintiff has already been cross examined by the counsel for the defendants and closed their evidence and it is to be proved by the plaintiff whether his name is Gurjit Singh alias Baljit Singh or not. Accordingly, the case was posted for evidence of the petitioner/defendant.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the trial Court was in error in dismissing the application filed under Order 11 Rule 8 CPC for discovering of facts and there was no proof that the plaintiff was known as Gurjit Singh alias Baljit Singh and it is only an after thought to grab the property in issue. The interrogatories put in the application would make it mandatory to the plaintiff to produce his passport etc. and the educational certificates to know his correct identity would have helped the Court to adjudicate upon the matter in a proper manner.
5. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the present revision petition. A perusal of the plaint would go on show that the respondent Gurjit Singh alias Baljit Singh filed a suit for declaration on 31.10.2009 that he is owner in possession of various shares of the land alleging that Gurjit Singh and Baljit Singh were the same person and share of Gurjit Singh was to the extent of 1631 share and share of Baljit was to the extent of 1467, therefore, the plaintiff was co-owner in possession of 3098/6810 share out of land described in list at Serial No. 'A' and owner in possession of ½ share out of the land described in head note 'B' of the plaint. He was the son of the present petitioner having being born from Surinder Kaur whereas defendant no.2 Harinder Kaur was his step mother and there was a dispute regarding the share on account of death of his grand mother Bakshish Kaur who died intestate and on death of her husband Joginder Singh who died subsequently. The property had devolved upon the legal heirs and therefore the PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA 2014.11.26 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity correction was required to be made in the revenue record. The suit was of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.6202 of 2014(O&M) -3- contested by the present petitioner taking various pleas and it was denied that Gurjit Singh and Baljit Singh were the same person and the plea taken was that the plaintiff was to prove the same and that he was not in possession of property in dispute and the defendants have become owners by way of adverse possession.
6. Thereafter, as noticed above application for interrogatories was filed on 5.7.2014 which was opposed by respondent no.1 on the ground that the plaintiff had already been cross examined and the application had been moved to delay the proceedings as it was fixed for evidence of the defendants. It was mentioned that the plaintiff has been duly cross examined by the defendants and the application is a misuse of the process of the Court. No such interrogatories could be put at this stage. Resultantly, the impugned order has been passed as noticed above.
7. The controversy in hand has already been noticed above. Order 11 CPC pertains to discovery and inspection and interrogatories put have to be answered by way of affidavit to be filed within ten days or such time as the Court may allow. As per Rule 1 of Order 11 CPC, the interrogatories have to have noted at the foot stating which such interrogatories the person is required to answer and the provisions further provide that interrogatories which do not relate to any matter to the question in the suit shall be deemed to be irrelevant. The scheme of the Code is for purpose of clarifying the facts before the evidence starts and similar to the purpose of asking to admit or deny documents. The purpose thus is of facilitating the proof of the case and to save time which may otherwise be incurred in adducing evidence to prove necessary facts. The purpose of interrogatories is thus to cut short the evidence and the application should be filed after framing of issues.
8. In the present case as noticed above, the case of the plaintiff himself is that Gurjit Singh and Baljit Singh are the same person and are entitled PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA 2014.11.26 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity to specific share in the property of the family. The plaintiff has been examined of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.6202 of 2014(O&M) -4- and it was for the petitioner/defendant to cross examine the said witness regarding this aspect. The provisions of Order 11 of the CPC cannot be used for the purpose of filling up the lacuna in cross examination if any. This Court in Satya Devi Vs. Kanta Rani 1999(3) PLR 724 set aside the order vide which the trial Court which had allowed the application for interrogatories on the ground that entire evidence of the parties had been led and the case was listed for evidence of the plaintiff in rebuttal and the very purpose of interrogatories at that stage was frustrated and the order passed was without jurisdiction. The relevant observations read as under:-
"5. In the facts of the present case, it has been pointed out that the entire evidence of the parties has been led. The suit was listed for evidence of the plaintiff in rebuttal. It was at that stage that the interrogatories were served. Once the evidence has been led, as noticed above, and there is very little to be recorded in evidence, then serving of interrogatories will not serve any purpose. Fishy interrogatories will not be proper. The very purpose of interrogatories at this stage is frustrated. Therefore, the learned trial Court was patently in error in allowing the application without recording reasons. The order must be taken to have been passed without jurisdiction."
9. This Court in Bhupinder Kumar and another Vs. Ajay Pal Goyal and another 2012(1) PLR 717 upheld the order rejecting the plea of the defendants that interrogatories were essential for just decision of the case and held as under:-
"6. According to the aforesaid Rule, the plaintiff or the defendant with the leave of the Court is entitled to deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite party or any one or more of such parties which are essential for the just decision of the suit. However, in the present case, issues were framed on 1.4.2010 and evidence of the plaintiffs had already been concluded. It was at the stage when the case was fixed for the evidence of the defendants that the alleged interrogatories were furnished by the defendant- petitioners. Though interrogatories can be sought at any time but the PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA 2014.11.26 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.6202 of 2014(O&M) -5- same has to be bona fide and without any delay. In this case, counsel for the petitioners was unable to explain why interrogatories could not be furnished at the initial stage itself and what was the necessity to seek reply by interrogatories when the evidence of the plaintiffs had already been concluded."
10. Accordingly, keeping in view the above settled position of law and keeping in mind the controversy involved and the fact that the nature of interrogatories is such that onus is upon the plaintiff and it was for the petitioner to cross examine and shatter his case, moving of interrogatories at this stage is without any basis. The order rejecting the application is thus justified and does not warrant any interference.
11. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are dismissed.
05.11.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA)
Pka JUDGE
PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA
2014.11.26 10:40
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh