Bombay High Court
Yashavant Vasudeo Natu And Anr vs Sudhir Vasant Karnataki And Ors on 8 March, 2021
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
20.731.20 wp.doc
ISM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 731 OF 2020
Yashavant Vasudeo Natu and another ....Petitioners
V/s.
Sudhir Vasant Karnataki and Ors .....Respondents
Mr. Shankar P. Thorat for the Petitioners
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE: MARCH 8, 2021.
P.C.:
1] This Petition is by Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 who are facing the Suit
for damages being Special Civil Suit No. 1386 of 2012, pending on the file of Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune.
2] During cross-examination of the Plaintiff, Petitioner-Defendant invoked provisions of Order XI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 thereby submiting interrogatories with an object to cut down precious Court's time. Such prayer for answering interrogatories was resisted by the Respondent-Plaintiff and vide impugned order at 1/5 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2021 16:57:42 ::: 20.731.20 wp.doc Exhibit 16, prayer came to be rejected on 28/06/2019. 3] Counsel for the Petitioner would urge that Court below has failed to appreciate the very object of submitting interrogatories to the Respondent-Plaintiff. According to him, Plaintiff in his reply to Application Exhibit 60 has shown his willingness to answer the interrogatories provided there has to be a direction from the Court. It is further claimed that in the backdrop of examination-in-chief submitted by the Plaintiff and the pleadings, it is necessary to have answers to interrogatories for proper adjudication of the Suit claim. In the aforesaid background, it is prayed that order impugned passed below Exhibit 60, the one moved under Order XI Rule 1 and Application Exh. 65 seeking correction in the footnote in the said Application Exh. 60 are liable to be quashed and set aside. 4] I have considered the aforesaid submissions in the light of the provisions of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2/5 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2021 16:57:42 :::
20.731.20 wp.doc 5] It can be noticed from the record that Petitioner-Defendant invoked the said provisions at the stage of recording of cross- examination of the Plaintiff.
6] As far as the Trial in the Suit is concerned, Court below framed issues at Exhibit 37 which reads thus:
"Ex.37:
Issues
1. Does the Plaintiff prove that the Defendants have initiated false and vexatious criminal action against the Plaintiff and are thus guilty of malicious prosecution and abuse of process of law?
2. Does Plaintiff prove that on account of the Criminal Action initiated by the Defendants he suffered loss aggregating to RS 94105029/-
3. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to seek reliefs as prayed?
4. Whether Defendant no 4 is entitled to seek compensatory costs as prayed?
5 What order and Decree?"
7] As such, the Court is required to find out whether there was a vexatious claim initiated by Petitioner-Defendant and whether there 3/5 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2021 16:57:42 ::: 20.731.20 wp.doc was abuse of process of law for such malicious prosecution. 8] In the aforesaid background, if the nature of interrogatories are looked into, the Trial Court, in my opinion was justified in recording a finding that Suit pending for quite a long time. At the stage of recording of cross-examination of the Plaintiff, there is no justification for grant of leave to to direct the party i.e. Respondent- Plaintiff to answer interrogatories.
9] If nature of interrogatories are appreciated in the backdrop of issues which are sought to be decided, in my opinion, Court below was justified in rejecting the prayer for issuance of directions to Respondent to answer interrogatories. This Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners are trying to go for roving and fishing enquiry. 10] This Court cannot be oblivion to the fact that Trial Court was sensitive to the object with which provisions of Order XI Rule 1 of CPC is incorporated i.e. for saving precious Court's time and also 4/5 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2021 16:57:42 ::: 20.731.20 wp.doc expenses.
11] Having regard to the fact that Respondent is already in the witness box and is subjected to cross-examination, in my opinion, Trial Court was justified in rejecting the prayer. 12] No case for interference is made out. Petition fails, stands dismissed.
[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.] 5/5 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2021 16:57:42 :::