Kerala High Court
Heeralal Pananchand vs Sait Anandji Kalyanji Jair Temple Trust on 10 June, 2010
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8567 of 2010(O)
1. HEERALAL PANANCHAND,AGED 70 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SAIT ANANDJI KALYANJI JAIR TEMPLE TRUST,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
For Respondent :SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :10/06/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.8567 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Respondent it is claimed, is a religious, charitable trust and its buildings are alleged to be exempted from the purview of Section 25 of Act 2 of 1965. Respondent filed a suit, O.S.No.517 of 2009 before learned Additional Munsiff- I, Kozhikode against petitioner and others seeking their eviction from the building in the suit property obviously accepting them as tenants of respondent. Petitioner and others resisted the suit contending inter alia that they are entitled to the protection of Act 2 of 1965 as buildings of the respondent are not exempted from the provisions of the said Act by Government Kerala by any notification issued under Section 25 of the said Act and hence the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction. Parties went to trial and after the evidence was over petitioner filed I.A.No.1007 of 2010 for leave to serve interrogatory on the respondent. That application was opposed by the respondent and vide Ext.P3, order dated 27.02.2010 learned Munsiff dismissed that application observing that interrogatories sought to be delivered on respondent and required to be answered by it are wholly irrelevant to decide issues involved in the case. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that as per a resolution passed by the respondent exemption under Section 25 of Act 2 of 1965 is only against non-members of the trust and petitioner being a member of the trust (respondent), that exemption has WP(C) No.8567/2010 2 no application as against him. In short, the argument is that in the light of the said resolution, suit filed against petitioner in the civil court is not maintainable as Act 2 of 1965 applied. Learned counsel for respondent has supported the order of court below. According to the learned counsel, interrogatories sought to be delivered on respondent are not in respect of any contention that petitioner and others have raised in their written statement.
2. I have gone through Ext.P2, the interrogatories sought to be delivered on respondent and required to be answered by it. Now the contention raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that interrogatory Nos.4 and 5 are relevant for decision of the dispute. Those interrogatories related to the question whether there was any decision taken by the general body or trust board to institute a suit against a member tenant and whether there was any decision of general body of the trust to the effect that exemption granted by notification issued by the Government shall not be used against a member tenant. I have gone through a copy of written statement given to me by learned counsel for respondent. In paragraph No.3 of the written statement what is contended by the petitioner and others is that respondent is a temple trust established for commercial and business purpose as revealed from the trust deed and that respondent trust had not been exempted from the provisions of Act 2 of 1965. I was not able to find any contention, nor even its semblance that on account of any resolution now claimed by petitioner and allegedly taken by the respondent it was decided by the respondent that exemption granted by Government WP(C) No.8567/2010 3 notification shall not apply to any member tenant and is applicable only to tenants outside the trust. So much so interrogatory Nos.4 and 5 now relied on by learned counsel for petitioner are also not relevant for a decision of the dispute. Interrogatories sought to be served cannot go beyond the scope of pleadings of the parties. A party by getting answers on interrogatories cannot set up a defence which he has not taken up in his pleadings. As such learned Munsiff is correct in holding that interrogatories are not relevant for decision of the dispute. If so, order under challenge requires no interference.
Writ Petition is dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks