Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Jaypreet Kaur Sawhney And Co & Ors vs Mr Padam Chand Agarwal & Ors on 7 October, 2022
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 526/2016 & I.A. No. 15493/2021
M/S JAYPREET KAUR SAWHNEY AND CO &
ORS ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Ms. Mahima Ahuja, Advocate.
(M): 9810074159
Email: [email protected]
versus
MR PADAM CHAND AGARWAL & ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate
for defendant nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
ORDER
% 07.10.2022 I.A. No. 15493/2021 (Application on behalf of defendant no. 1, 2 and 3 under Order 11 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for seeking directions to the plaintiff to file proper reply of the interrogatories)
1. This is an application on behalf of defendants 1 to 3 under Order 11 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for seeking directions to the plaintiff to file proper reply to the interrogatories.
2. Facts that emerge from the plaint are that, present suit has been filed for damages and permanent injunction by the plaintiff against defendants on the ground that plaintiff no. 1 company is the owner of fashion brand known as "Trendy Divva". Defendant nos. 2 and 3 had taken a franchise of the said brand from plaintiff no. 1. It is the case of the plaintiff that due to their breach of obligations as a franchise, plaintiff no. 1 had to shut the respective stores. Thus, defendants 1 to 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 1 of 24 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:27.10.2022 14:44:23 started indulging in acts of extortion by making illegal monetary demands from plaintiff no. 2 and 3. When the plaintiffs failed to accede to the said illegal demands of defendants 1 to 3, in retaliation, with a view to harass the plaintiff, defendant nos. 2 and 3 have published false, libellous, derogatory and defamatory publications against the plaintiffs.
3. As per the plaint, defendants 1 to 3 have published defamatory content against plaintiffs on the internet where they have stated that the owner of plaintiff no. 1 i.e. Ms. Jaypreet Kaur Sahani @ Mrs. Preeti Singh who is plaintiff no. 2 herein, was issued arrest warrant by Delhi court for criminal offence of bouncing of her cheque of Rs. 50,00,000/- given to franchise Yashika leasing as refund of security deposit. The contents of the defamatory post as reproduced in the plaint is as follows:-
"Investors Beware! Owner Jaypreet Kaur alias Preeti Singh w/o Gurprit Sawhney was issued arrest warrant on 09 June 2016 by Delhi Court for CRIMINAL offence of bouncing of her cheque for Rs. Fifty lacs given to Franchisee Yashika Leasing as refund of Security Deposit. Criminal Trial against her as accused is continuing. They have also cheated my son Pranay Aggarwal & his wife by falsely deceiving & inducing them to deposit Rs. Sixty Lacs as refundable Security Deposit for their two shops. Both shops have been closed by them illegally & entire money misappropriated for which SHE IS FACING LEGAL ACTION...."
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said defamatory content published by defendants 1 to 3 through the facebook account of defendant no. 1 is false, reckless and derogatory. The same has been Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 2 of 24 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:27.10.2022 14:44:23 published to malign the reputation of the plaintiffs in the market and to cause irreparable losses to the brand owned by the plaintiffs. It is submitted that M/s Yashika Leasing had breached the material terms of the agreement with the plaintiffs causing huge loss to the plaintiff no. 1 company. Further, proceedings initiated by M/s Yashika Leasing under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act did not result in arrest warrants against plaintiff no. 2, as offence under Section 138 of the said Act is a bailable offence.
5. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that defendants 1 to 5 have distributed defamatory pamphlets/leaflets having plaintiffs' names and photographs in the newspapers all over Sushant lok, Gurugram and at Lajpat Nagar, Kotla Mubarkpur, Delhi. The said defamatory publication reads as under:-
"owner Mrs. Jaypreet Kaur Sawhney W/o Sh Gurprit Kaur Sawhney R/o B-612 Sushant Lok - I Gurgaon is facing criminal trial as an accused in case of bouncing of cheque for Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rs fifty Lacs) Given as refund for security deposit to franchisee, M/s Yashika Leasing. Legal action for cheating of Rs. 60,00,000/- (Rs. Sixty lacs) has been initiated by two other franchisee, Pranay Aggarwal & his wife.
(M. 9560 755 395, EM: [email protected] ) They have not paid dues of several lacs of rupees to other suppliers, vendors & even their own staff also."
6. After publication of the aforesaid defamatory content, plaintiff no. 2 and 3 started receiving calls from various customers of their brand as well as other people from the locality and market inquiring about the said allegations. Thus, the present suit has been filed with prayer for passing a decree of permanent injunction restraining Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 3 of 24 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:27.10.2022 14:44:23 defendants 1 to 5 from publishing/re-publishing in any form or manner, any existing or future content that is defamatory and have the effect of harming the reputation of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also prayed for decree of damages in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants 1 to 5 for an amount of Rs. 2 crores or for any higher amount as the court may be pleased to determine.
7. In the written statement of defendant no. 1, in response to the suit, it has been stated as follows:-
"2.1 That plaintiff No. 2 & 3 have cheated several persons including the following and even their own staff also & are facing several police investigations, Civil and Criminal Court cases. Plaintiffs have not paid millions of rupees to several creditors-suppliers of fabric & accessories, persons who have done Beading, Embroidery work etc. for the plaintiffs. Hence, plaintiffs or their brand, can not be called, by any standards, to be enjoying any respect or good will in society or in market. Details of some of the pending cases against plaintiff-2 & 3 are given below. 2.2 That plaintiff No. 2 & 3 are facing criminal Court trial for bouncing of cheques in five cases, besides three other criminal Court cases. Economic Offences Wing (E) of the office of Dy. Commissioner of Police (East), Traffic Tower, Gurgaon have already registered three criminal complaints against plaintiff No. 2 & 3. They are also involved in four civil cases. It is learnt that plaintiffs have also not paid dues of several persons amounting to nearly Rs. 2.43 crores as detailed in para 2.4 below. Such persons like the plaintiffs can not be said to be having any goodwill in business or society. Full details of all cases are given below.
2.2.1 That plaintiffs have cheated Sh. Pranay Aggarwal & his wife Mrs. Shivani Gupta (Defendant No. 2 & 3 herein) a sum of Rs. 60 lacs (Rs. Sixty lacs) for both of which criminal complaint No. 911 - P dt. 10-10-2016 has been Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 4 of 24 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:27.10.2022 14:44:23 registered by Economic Offences Wing (E), office of DCP (E) Gurgaon. Detailed submissions are made in para E. 1 to E. 4 above. True photocopy of complaint bearing seal of DCP (E) is enclosed with W.S. of defendant No. 2 as ANMEXURE - D - 3.
2.2.2 That franchisee M/s. Yashika Leasing & Finance Ltd. has been cheated amount of Rs. 50 lacs. Defendant No. 4 & 5 herein are it's directors. Detailed submissions are made in Para - 7 (vii) (d) herein below.
2.2.3 That plaintiff No. 1, 2 & 3 are already facing several Criminal Cases as accused relating to bouncing of cheques. Details of some of the cases u/s. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act pending in Court of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon, are given below. From the contents of these complaints it is evident that persons and company like the plaintiffs whose cheques are repeatedly bounced and who are accused to cheat and deceive the complainants in several cases cannot be said to be commanding any respect, goodwill in the market or in society. Plaintiff No. 2 & 3 are partners of M/s. Bharat Export Overseas.
Sr. Title of Case Case Regis. Date of Hearing
No. No. & Years
1. M/s. Kanchan 11815/2016 20-12-2016
International Vs. (Warrant)
M/s. Bharat Export 17-01-2017
Overseas & Ors. (Reply)
2. M/s. Vakons Embroidery 12835/2016 15-11-2016 P. Ltd. Vs. Court of Ms. M/s. Bharat Export Seema, JMIC.
Overseas & Ors.
3. M/s. Vakons Embroidery 12834/2016 15-11-2016 P. Ltd. Vs. Court of Ms. 05-01-2017 M/s. Bharat Export Seema, JMIC.
Overseas & Ors.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 5 of 24 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:27.10.2022 14:44:234. M/s Parma Enterprises 10585/2016 22-02-2017 Vs. Court of Ms. M/s. Bharat Export Seema, JMIC.
Overseas & Ors.
Chart of above Court cases downloaded from Court website is enclosed as annexure - D - 4. with W.S. of defendant No. 2. 2.2.3 (i) That in case of complaint No. 11815/2016 u/s. 138 N. I. Act by M/s. Kanchan International against accused it is alleged that, "the accused are in the habit of making the payment in default and also to issue cheques without having sufficient funds in the accused amount."
It is also alleged that "the accused have also not paid the rent for the month of June, July, Aug & Sept 2016................... furthermore the accused have not deposited the electricity bill of the leased premises. The accused have deducted the TDS of the complainant since August 2015 till date but the accused have not deposited the TDS amount with the income tax authority." True copy of the Court complaint and other relevant documents are enclosed herewith as annexure - D - 5, with W.S. of defendant No. 2.
2.2.3 (ii) That in both the complaints filed by M/s. Vakons Embroidery P. Ltd. for bouncing of cheques complainant has alleged that accused 'threatened the complainant with dire consequences and flatly refused to make any payment'. True copy of both Court complaints and other relevant documents are enclosed as annexure - D - 6 & D - 7 respectively with W.S. of defendant No. 2. 2.2.3 (iii) That in the criminal complaint "filed by M/s Parma Enterprises it is alleged that, "the accused has issued the said cheque with malafide and dishonest intention and to cheat and harass the complainant". True Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 6 of 24 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:27.10.2022 14:44:23 copy of the Court complaint and other relevant documents are enclosed as annexure - D - 8, with W.S. of defendant No. 2.
2.2.4 That plaintiff No. 2 & 3 have also cheated Sh. Sushil Bansal, for which criminal complaint No. 1063 - P dt. 22- 11-2016 for offence of cheating u/s. 420 IPC has been registered by Economic Offences Wing (East) under Dy. Commissioner of Police (E), Traffic Tower, Gurgaon. True photocopy of complaint bearing stamp of DCP office is enclosed as annexure - D - 9 with W.S. of defendant No. 2. 2.2.5 That Sh. Rajan Singh, who was working with Plaintiff 2 & 3 has also been cheated by them of his dues amounting to Rs. Three lacs. Criminal Complaint filed by Sh. Rajan Singh has already been registered criminal complaint. No. 1064 - P dt. 22-11-2016 for criminal offences of cheating etc. by EOW (E) of Deputy Commissioner of Police (E), Traffic Tower, Gurgaon. True copy of the complaint bearing stamp and date of 22.11.2016 of DCP (East) office is enclosed and marked as annexure - D - 10, with W.S. of defendant No. 2. 2.3 That several civil cases including the following are also pending against plaintiff No. 2 & 3 mostly for recovery of money.
2.3.1 That Case title "Mukesh Jain Vs. Jaypreet Kaur Sawhney" having No. 618001/16, old No. C.S. No. 739/16, is pending in Hon'ble Court of ADJ - 12/ Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for recovery of Rs. 7,21,661/- for fabric supplied to plaintiff no. 2 herein. Next date of hearing is 05-04-2017. True copy of Suit and Court website printout is enclosed as annexure - D - 11, with W.S. of defendant No. 2.
2.3.2 That another case titled as "Kuljit Kaur Bhalla Vs. Jaypreet Kaur is pending in the Court of Hon'ble Ms. Deepti, CJ (JD), Gurgaon as per orders dt. 28-01-2016. True copy of Court website printout dt. 28-01-2016 is enclosed as annexure - D - 12, with W.S. of defendant No. 2. 2.3.3 That Case No. CS/0578019/2016, titled as "Amar Jee Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 7 of 24 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:27.10.2022 14:44:23 Vs. Bharat Export Corp. And Ors." is pending in Court of ADJ (North - West), Rohini, New Delhi. True copy of complaint & Court Website printout is enclosed as annexure - D - 13, with W.S. of defendant No. 2. 2.4 That it has been learnt that plaintiff No. 2 & 3 have not paid dues of other persons including following persons amounts mentioned below against their names. It is learnt that these persons had supplied them fabrics, done embroidery & Beading job work etc. for them.
S.No. Name & Address Amount
payable by
plaintiffs
since long.
A. Sh. Dinesh Gupta Rs.
599/105,1st floor, 40,00,000/-
Gali Ghanteshwar,
Katra Neei, Chandni
Chowk, Delhi -
110006
Mob: 9810045991
Email:
jagdambatextiles98@
gmail.com
Fabric Supplier
Dues pending last 1
Vi years.
B. Sh. Parveen Sadh Rs.
M/s. Kanak Textiles, 50,00,000/-
C-173, Lajpat Nagar
- I, New Delhi -
Mob: 9811008777
Fabric Supplier
C. Sh. Shanu Rs.
Beading Job work 35,00,000/-
done,
M/s. U.P. Zari,
Navada Shekhan, Old
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 8 of 24
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:27.10.2022
14:44:23
City,
Bareiily(U.P)
M:07017194413
D. Sh. Jahid Rs.
Embroidery Job Work 75,00,000/-
done
M/s. Hazi Afjai
Embroidery,
62, Jagatpur, Nai
Basti, Old City,
Bareilly (U.P.)
M: 09358601800
D. Sh. Haseeb from Rs.
Piliphit - 40,00,000/-
Beading Job work
charges.
M:09458700459
F. Sh. Mithaiai Rs.3,00,000
Bhandari: Surat - /-
M:9825930464
Supplied Fabric ,
Amount pending last
2 years.
Total liability of plaintiffs: Rs. 2.43 Cores"
8. During the pendency of the present case, defendants 1 to 3 filed an application in the questionnaire form under Order 11 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC for delivering certain interrogatories by the plaintiffs. The said application came to be dismissed vide order 07.05.2019. Defendants 1 to 3 preferred an appeal, bearing O.A. No. 76/2019.
9. The said appeal filed by defendant nos. 1 to 3 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2020. Thus, the effect of allowing Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 9 of 24 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:27.10.2022 14:44:23 the appeal of the defendants was that the application filed by defendants 1 to 3 under Order 11 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed. In the order dated 18.02.2020 passed by this Court, it is clearly recorded that the counsel for the plaintiffs, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, has stated that the plaintiffs will file an affidavit giving answers to the interrogatories and/or file documents in power and possession of the plaintiffs.
10. Pursuant thereto, plaintiffs filed reply to the interrogatories. However, in reply to question nos. 8, 10 and 21 to 33, the plaintiffs have given the reply that the questions are not relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the present case. The response of the plaintiffs to the interrogatories along with explanation as to why said questions are not relevant, as stated in the reply on behalf of the plaintiffs to the present application, is reproduced as below:-
SR. NO. QUESTION ANSWER EXPLANATION (GIVEN IN INTERROGATOR IES) viii. How many cases, both The said question The said question is civil and criminal cases, is not relevant for irrelevant because are pending against the the purpose of the issue of the Plaintiffs? Plaintiffs be adjudication of present matter is directed to provide the present case. about defamatory list with full details of content being posted each case No. Court by the Defendant name & address,nature No. 1 to 3 and not of case etc. of all the about the cases cases pending against pending against the them and also be plaintiff. Such a required to state the question is dates since the said scandalous and is proceedings were not relevant for the initiated against the purpose of Plaintiffs. adjudication of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 10 of 24 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:27.10.2022 14:44:23 present case.
x. Plaintiffs be directed to The said question The present suit is a state how much amount is no relevant for defamation suit and is owed by plaintiff or the purpose of the question of how their concern like Bharat adjudication of much amount Export Overseas etc. to present case. plaintiffs or their financial Institutions & concerns own to Banks? Have any financial institution Financial & Bank won‟t Institutions/Banks etc. establish anything in filed any cases against the present suit.
plaintiff? Give details Such a question is irrelevant in all the probabilities.
xxi. Whether M/s. Bharat Not relevant for the The said question is Exports Overseas of purpose of irrelevant because which plaintiff no. 2 & 3 adjudication of the present suit is a are the partners and also present case. defamation suit and plaintiff no. 2 were not the said question convicted and sentenced would not establish to undergo imprisonment anything. Such a for three months for question is being put offence U/S 138 NI Act to draw „Sadistic and whether after Pleasure‟ by the conviction, they were Defendant No. 1 to 3 also not directed, U/S and is vexatious and 357 (3) Cr.P.C. to pay scandalous. Further compensation of Rs. 3 such a question is Lacs to the complainant not related to the vide Order dated 21-09- issues framed for the 2018 passed by Hon‟ble present matter.
Dr. Renu Solkhe, JMIC, Gurugram in criminal complaint filed by M/s Kanchan International in case CNR No. HRGR 03 029661-2016. CIS No. 11815/2016?
xxii. Whether Plaintiff No. 3 Not relevant for the The said question is was not convicted and purpose of irrelevant because sentenced to adjudication of the present suit is a imprisonment for a present case. defamation suit and period of two months the said question and also ordered to pay would not establish Rs. 3,40,000/- as anything. Such a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 11 of 24 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:27.10.2022 14:44:23 compensation to question is being put complainant M/s. Parma to draw „Sadistic Enterprises who filed Pleasure‟ by the criminal complaint in Defendant No. 1 to 3 case no. CNR NO HRGA and is vexatious and 03025326-2016, CIS No. scandalous. Further 10585/2016 for such a question is committing offence U/s not related to the 138 N.I. Act? issues framed for the Whether the said present matter. In complaint was not filed any event the said on bouncing of cheques matter is already no. 584321 dated 30-04- settled.
2016 of Rs. 2,61.250/?
xxiii. Whether M/s Vakons Case Withdrawn. This question has Embroidery Pvt. Ltd. been answered.
have not filed two
criminal complaints
against M/s. Bharat
Exports Overseas of
which plaintiff no, 2 & 3
are the partners and also
against plaintiff no. 2 &
3 for offence U/S 138
N.I. Act for bouncing of
5 cheques bearing no.
000190 for Rs. 1 Lac,
cheque no. 000191 for
Rs. 1,06,820/-, cheque
no. 000188 for Rs.
63,037/-, cheque no.
000187 for Rs. 73,500/-,
cheque no. 000186 for
Rs. 73,500/respectively
in Gurgaon Courts?
xxiv. Whether complainants Not relevant for the The said question is
namely M/s. Religare purpose of irrelevant because
Finvest Ltd., and M/s. adjudication of the present suit is a
Neo Growth Credit have present case. defamation suit and
not filed in Dwarka, N. the said question
Delhi Courts, criminal would not establish
complaints U/S. 138 N.I. anything.
Act for offences of Such a question is
bouncing of being put to draw
chequesagainst Plaintiff „Sadistic Pleasure‟
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 12 of 24
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:27.10.2022
14:44:23
no. 2 bearing Reg. No. by the Defendant
5006359/2016, CNR No. No. 1 to 3 and is
DLSW 020152402016 vexatious and
and Reg. No. scandalous. Further
22283/2017 and CNR such a question is
No. DLSW respectively. not related to the
issues framed for the
present matter.
xxv. Whether Sh. Baljeet Not relevant for the The said question is
Singh Guglani and M/s. purpose of irrelevant because
Capital First Ltd. have adjudication of the the present suit is a
not filed criminal present case. defamation suit and
complaint U/S 138 the said question
N.I.Act against plaintiff would not establish
No. 1 in Tis Hazari anything.
Courts, Delhi, in case Such a question is
bearing 9592/2017, CNR being put to draw
No. DLCT020173352017 „Sadistic Pleasure‟
and Registration No. by the Defendant
4643/2017 and CNR No. No. 1 to 3 and is
DLCT020072072017 vexatious and
respectively. scandalous. Further
such a question is
not related to the
issues framed for the
present matter.
xxvi. Whether M/s Indusind Not relevant for the The said question is
Bank has not filed purpose of irrelevant because
criminal complaint for adjudication of the the present suit is a
offences U/s 138 N.I. Act present case. defamation suit and
in Saket, N. Delhi Courts the said question
against plaintiff no. 2 would not establish
having Reg. NO. anything.
892/2017 & CNR No. Such a question is
DLSE 0200120152017 being put to draw
„Sadistic Pleasure‟
by the Defendant
No. 1 to 3 and is
vexatious and
scandalous. Further
such a question is
not related to the
issues framed for the
present matter.
xxvii. Whether M/s. Bajaj Not relevant for the The said question is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 13 of 24
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:27.10.2022
14:44:23
Finance Co. Ltd. have purpose of irrelevant because
not file d criminal adjudication of the the present suit is a
complaint for offences of present case. defamation suit and
bouncing of cheques U/S the said question
138 N.I. Act. In the would not establish
Court of Metropolitan anything.
Magistrate, South West, Such a question is
Dwarka, New Delhi being put to draw
having Regd. No. „Sadistic Pleasure‟
7702/2017, CNR No. by the Defendant
DLSWO20102722017, No. 1 to 3 and is
Regd. No. 4456/2017, vexatious and
CNR No. DLSW scandalous. Further
02006359-2017 & Regd. such a question is
No. 21839/2017, CNR not related to the
No. DLSW 02030497- issues framed for the
2017 respectively of present matter.
bouncing of three
cheques against plaintiff
no. 1.
xxviii. Whether non-bailable Not applicable for This question has
arrest warrant were not Plaintiff No. 1 and been answered.
issued on 09-06-2016 3. For Plaintiff No. against Plaintiff No. 2 by 2, it is a matter of Court of Hon‟ble record.
Magistrate Ms. Nabeeba
Wali, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi in criminal
case no. 56714/2016 for
offence U/S. 138 N.I. Act
filed by M/s. Yashika
Leasing & Financial
Services Ltd. against
Plaintiff No. 2, for
bouncing of cheque of
Rs. Fifty lacs? Whether
said trail is still
continuing against
Plaintiff No. 2?
xxix. Whether M/s Kanchan Not relevant for the The said question is
Internatinal, Sh. Mukesh purpose of irrelevant because
Jain, M/s Navya Fabrics adjudication of the present suit is a
have filed cases for present case. defamation suit and
recover of various the said question
amounts against M/s. would not establish
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 14 of 24
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:27.10.2022
14:44:23
Bharat Export Overseas anything.
in the Courts at Such a question is
Gururam, Delhi, being put to draw
Faridabad bearing case „Sadistic Pleasure‟
Regd. No. 23/2016. CNR by the Defendant
No. HRGRO2004082- No. 1 to 3 and is
2016, regd. No. vexatious and
618001/2016, CNR No. scandalous. Further
DLCT 01-005426-2015 such a question is
& regd. No. 2051/2016, not related to the
CNR No. HRFB issues framed for the
02002803-2016 present matter.
respectively.
xxx. Whether Amar Jee has The said case This question has
not filed case no. CS No. doesn‟t pertain to been answered.
258/16 against Bharat the present
Exports Corp. & Ors. Plaintiff.
which was pending as on
13 11-2017 in Hon‟ble
Court of Sh. Sunil
Choudhary, ADJ-03
(N/W) Rohini Courts,
Delhi. What is status of
the case?
xxxi. Whether M/s. Anora Not relevant for the The said question is
Fashions Pvt. Ltd. purpose of irrelevant because
Mumbai filed S.C. Suit adjudication of the present suit is a
No. 2287/2016 against present case. defamation suit and
Plaintiff No. 1, 2 & 3 in the said question
Bombay City Civil would not establish
Court, at Bombay for anything.
recover of Rs. 4,60,460/- Such a question is
plus interest etc.? Please being put to draw
state the status of said „Sadistic Pleasure‟
case. by the Defendant
No. 1 to 3 and is
vexatious and
scandalous. Further
such a question is
not related to the
issues framed for the
present matter.
xxxii. Has one Mr. Rajan No This question has
Singh filed Criminal been answered.
Complaint No. 1064 dt.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 15 of 24
SINGH TARIYAL
Signing Date:27.10.2022
14:44:23
22-11-2016 against the
Plaintiffs No. 2 & 3 to
Ld. DCP (East) Gurgaon
for cheating the
complainant a sum of Rs.
Three Lacs?
xxxiii. Plaintiffs be directed to No such records This question has
produce documents are available with been answered.
submitted to them to the plaintiff.
Credit Rating Agency,
ICRA Ltd. during last 5
years
11. On behalf of the plaintiffs, it is contended that the interrogatories as aforesaid are irrelevant and scandalous and that they do not exhibit bonafide for the purpose of the present suit. Thus, the aforesaid questions have not been answered by the plaintiffs. It is submitted that interrogatories which are unreasonable, vexatious, oppressive or scandalous cannot be compelled to be answered. It is further contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that questions which may be relevant during examination of witnesses, cannot be said to be relevant at the time of delivery of interrogatories.
12. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) AFL Developers Pvt Ltd. Vs Veena Trivedi, AIR 2000 Delhi 354.
(ii) The Rajasthan Golden Transport Co. (Pvt. ) Ltd. Vs Avon Footwear Industries Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1986 Delhi 286.
(iii) Raj Narain Vs Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi and Anr., (1972) 3 SCC 850.
13. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendants, it is submitted that plaintiffs have not filed proper reply and have wrongly not Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 16 of 24 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:27.10.2022 14:44:23 answered the interrogatories on the ground that the same are not relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the present case.
14. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by both the parties.
15. Perusal of the pleadings on record clearly show that the issue as regards the criminal cases pending against the plaintiffs is one of the core issues which is material in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The very premise of filing the present suit by the plaintiffs is the posts which have been put on the internet by the defendants against the plaintiffs, wherein there are allegations with respect to cases against plaintiff no. 2 for bouncing of cheques and non-payment of amounts to other individuals. Thus, on the basis of the said defamatory posts, the plaintiffs have prayed for decree of permanent injunction in the present suit thereby restraining the defendants from publishing/re-publishing any defamatory posts that have the effect of harming the reputation of the plaintiffs. On the said basis, decree of damages has also been prayed against the defendants.
16. Thus, the issue whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages against the defendants would be dependent on the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein these questions as regards any civil and criminal cases pending against the plaintiffs would be a material issue. This Court would have to assess as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any damages. While deciding the said issue, the factual aspects with respect to the veracity of the factual contents of the social posts made by the defendants would be a relevant factor. This Court would also have to consider with respect to the truthfulness and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 17 of 24 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:27.10.2022 14:44:23 correctness of the statements posted by the defendants posted on the social media or circulated, as alleged in the plaint. Thus, the information with respect to the cases pending against the plaintiffs will have bearing on the present case. The interrogatories as sought by the defendants are relevant to the case in hand and have a reasonably close connection with the issues in the present matter.
17. Considering the nature of the present case, it cannot be said that the interrogatories in any manner are scandalous or irrelevant. It also cannot be said that the aforesaid interrogatories which the plaintiffs have refused to answer are roving or fishing in nature. The plaintiffs have sought damages against the defendants for their conduct of posting defamatory posts against the plaintiffs. The contents of the defamatory posts have direct relevance to the interrogatories sought from the plaintiffs. The said interrogatories have bearing on the issues involved in the case and they relate to the matter in question in the suit.
18. At this stage, it would also be relevant to note the issues framed in the present matter. Issues were framed vide order dated 04.05.2018, which are reproduced as follows:-
"6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed:
(i) Whether the contents of the Facebook Messenger of the defendants no. l to 5 which are alleged by the plaintiffs to be defamatory of the plaintiffs were not posted by the defendants no. l to 5? OPD.
(ii) Whether the Facebook / Messenger Account of the defendants was hacked and the contents which are claimed by the plaintiffs to be defamatory, were Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 18 of 24 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:27.10.2022 14:44:23 posted by a hacker? OPD
(iii) If the above issues are decided against the defendants, whether the contents are defamatory of the plaintiffs? OPP
(iv) If the above issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs, to damages, if any, in what amount and / or to what other relief, are the plaintiffs entitled to and from which of the defendants?
OPP
(v) Relief. "
19. Reading of the aforesaid issues clearly shows that this Court would be required to adjudicate on the issues whether the contents of the posts by the defendants against the plaintiffs are defamatory in nature and if yes, to the amount of damages the plaintiffs are entitled to and from which of the defendants. Thus, considering the case in hand and the issues framed therein, it cannot be said that the interrogatories as sought from the plaintiffs are irrelevant or scandalous.
20. The contention on behalf of the plaintiffs that the interrogatories could form subject matter of cross examination, is also not found tenable.
21. This Court in the case of Canara Bank Vs Rajiv Tyagi and Association & Anr., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 87/ ILR (2010) 3 Delhi 270 has held as follows:-
"6. The reasoning given by the trial court for dismissal of the application is certainly not tenable in law. Merely because the interrogatories could form the question which could be put in cross examination is no basis for denying the interrogatories. Certainly, whatever can form the subject matter of interrogatories can form the subject Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 19 of 24 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:27.10.2022 14:44:23 matter of cross examination. But notwithstanding the same a provision therefor has been made in the CPC. The interrogatories are aimed at facilitating proof of the case and to save the costs which may be incurred in adducing evidence to prove the necessary facts. Cross examination may not be necessary in view of the replies to the interrogatories. Thus, the test to be applied in dealing with an application for discovery by interrogatories is not whether it can form subject matter of cross examination or not but is of relevancy and expediency.
7. In the present case, the suit is for recovery of balance amount stated to be a due on a large number of bills stated to have been raised by the respondent no./plaintiff on the Bank. From the reply of the respondent no. 1/plaintiff to the application for interrogatories, the respondent no. 1/plaintiff has admitted that some of the bills which were claimed to be due may have been paid in full or in part. The respondent no. 1/plaintiff attempted to explain away the same by contending that the payments made by the Bank could not be related to the bills owing to the Bank not specifying that the payments was with respect to which bill. The question between the parties is thus of accounts. The queries/questions with respect to such accounts are best answered by delivery of interrogatories. If such queries were to be made in cross examination, the witness/plaintiff may not be in a position to answer the same immediately, for non availability of requisite material. The same would result either in the cross examination being deferred leading to delays and costs or to evasive answers. On the contrary, interrogatories can be answered by the party at its leisure and after perusing all records available at its office/residence and also by making enquiries, if any, necessary from its other staff members in know of the matter. Answers to the interrogatories will also lead to reduction in the time taken by the court in recording cross examination and help in crystallizing the cross examination........".Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 20 of 24 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:27.10.2022 14:44:23
22. It has been held time and again by various courts that provision of interrogatories has to be liberally used and parties ought to be encouraged to use them in the course of trial. The core object of interrogatories is to save evidence, diminish the burden of proof and to save expenses.
23. This Court in the case of Transport Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Reserve Bank of India and Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10063 has held as follows:-
"21. The provisions of Order XI of the CPC are intended to curtail evidence thereby expediting trial of suit, saving time of the Court and costs of litigation to the parties. They have to be liberally used and parties have to be encouraged to use them in the course of trial. One of the great objects of interrogatories when properly administered has always been to save evidence that is to diminish the burden of proof which was otherwise on the plaintiff. Their object is not merely to discover facts which will inform the plaintiff as to evidence to be obtained, but also to save the expense of proving a part on the case. Interrogatories are not limited to giving the plaintiff a knowledge on that which he does not already know but include the getting an admission of anything which he has to prove on any issue which is raised between him and the defendant. (Ref: Attorney-General v. Gashill (1882) 20 Ch.
519). Order XI gives a party a right to interrogate with a view to obtaining an admission from his opponent of everything which is material and relevant to the issue raised on the pleadings. The object is to obtain an admission from the opponent which will make the burden of proof easier than it otherwise would have been.
Interrogatories are admissible which go to support the applicant's case or to impeach or destroy the opponent's case. (Ref: Plymouth Mutual Co-op. Society v. Traders Publishing Association (1906) 1 LJ 415.) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 21 of 24 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:27.10.2022 14:44:23
22. Answers to the interrogatories would lead to reduction in the time taken by the court in recording cross examination and help in crystallizing the cross examination. The pleadings may not sufficiently disclose the nature of the parties case and in order to make good the deficiencies, this rule has been enacted. The court should not be hyper-technical at the stage of serving the interrogatories. The only defence to service of interrogatories can be when the same do not relate to the matter in question or are scandalous.
23. Administering of Interrogatories is to be encouraged as it is a means of obtaining admissions of parties and tends to shorten litigation. As a general rule the Interrogatory should be allowed, whether the answer to them would either strengthen the case of the party administering them or to destroy the case of the adversary. The court should not be hyper-technical at the stage of the service of the Interrogatories. This rule is to be used liberally whenever it could shorten the litigation and serve the interest of justice."
24. Dealing with the object of interrogatories, this Court in the case of AK Aggarwal and Anr. Vs Shanti Devi and Anr. 1995 SCC OnLine Del 965 has held as follows:-
"5. My attention has been drawn to a judgment of this Court in O. As. No. 4 & 5 of 1973 entitled Suresh Chand v. K.M. Vinay Devi etc decided on 14th September, 1973 :
Unfortunately, I am informed that this judgment has not been reported though it is an illuminating judgment so far as the provisions of Order XI CPC are concerned. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the said judgment. To quote:
A party has a right to interrogate with a view to obtaining an admission from his opponent of everything which is material and relevant to the issue raised on the pleadings. The object is to obtain an admission from the opponent which will have the burden of proof easier than Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 22 of 24 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:27.10.2022 14:44:23 it otherwise would have been. The purpose is to get from the defendant an admission of that which no doubt he denied by his defence but not on oath, e.g., the fact of the parentage of the appellant Suresh Chand, a fact which is within the knowledge and an admission of it by him must obviously save enormous amount of expense at .the trial. Lindley L.J. in the case of Attorney General (supra) said:
"It is no reason‟ for declining to answer the interrogatories to say that the same information may be got by cross-examinations at the trial."
If the appellants answer the question regarding parentage and give information regarding properties and the will of the deceased Thakur Dass the plaintiff would be relieved of the obligation to prove to that extent. She will not be required to call witnesses. She will save on that expenditure and trouble if these interrogatories are answered. It may possibly happen that the plaintiff will find that she has no need to call any witnesses.
In short interrogatories are admissible which go to support the applicant's case or to impeach or destroy the opponent's case plymouth Mutual Co-op. Society v. Traders Publishing Association, [1906] 1 K.B. 41 (sic) Sterling L.J. at page 41. This means that the right to interrogate is not confined to the facts directly in issue but extends to any facts the existence or nonexistence of which is relevant to the existence or nonexistence of the fact directly in issue (per Lord Esher, M.F. in Marrioti Chamberlain, [L.R.] 17 Q.B.D. 154 at page 165.
In the case of Sutherland (Duke) v. British Dominions Land Settlement Corporation, [1926] Ch. 746, Mr. Justice Tomlin said that the administering of interrogatories is a step which is more often desirable than undesirable and is to be encouraged rather than to be discouraged because they not infrequently bring an action to an end at an earlier stage than otherwise would be the case, to the advantage of all parties concerned."
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 23 of 24 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:27.10.2022 14:44:2325. Considering the law as aforesaid, it is held that the interrogatories as sought from the plaintiffs are relevant to the issues at hand. The answer to the interrogatories may have the effect of shortening the litigation.
26. In view of the aforesaid, the present application is allowed.
27. The plaintiffs are directed to give reply to interrogatories at Serial Nos. viii, x, xxi to xxxiii of the questionnaire of interrogatories.
28. The present application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
CS(OS) 526/2016
29. List for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar on 1.11.2022.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J OCTOBER 7, 2022 c Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURAN CS(OS) 526/2016 Page 24 of 24 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:27.10.2022 14:44:23