Delhi District Court
H.K. Mitroo vs . M/S Spearhead Digital on 6 November, 2012
: 1 :
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE01 : SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Suit No. 311/11
In the matter of :
H.K. Mitroo Vs. M/s Spearhead Digital
06.11.2012
ORDER :
Vide this order, I shall dispose off the applications of the defendant filed u/o 11 Rule 1 CPC and u/o 11 Rules 12, 14 & 16 CPC.
2 The plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession, arrears of rent and for mesne profits. The defendant has filed the detailed WS wherein it has admitted to have been inducted in the suit property as a tenant, however, it has submitted that it entered into agreement of sale with respect to suit property with the plaintiff. Both the applications have been filed by the defendant for administering interrogatories upon the plaintiff and for ordering discovery and production of documents respectively.
3 A perusal of the applications reveals that interrogatories as well as the documents of which the discovery and production is sought by the applications are with respect to asking the plaintiff to produce the documents of title of suit property and for producing Pass Books / statement of accounts and Contd....P..1 of 4 : 2 : income tax returns of the plaintiff from 1999 and for statement of income and expenditure and assets and liabilities for the assessment year 19992000 onwards. The plaintiff has filed the suit for possession and defendant has admitted to be inducted in the suit property as a tenant. Accordingly, defendant is estopped from challenging the title of the plaintiff u/s 116 of Evidence Act. Accordingly, both the applications are not maintainable with respect to asking the plaintiff to provide details with respect to his ownership or to produce the documents in support of ownership.
4 With respect to interrogatories and discovery and production of documents of income tax returns and other documents, the applications of the defendant cannot be allowed. The defendant is a private limited company and if it executes any document with respect to purchase of immovable property, it is essential for the defendant company to inform ROC about the same as well as for making an entry in the books of account with respect to the same. The defendant has admitted paid the TDS of the amount of Rs.60,000/ or Rs. 75,000/, however, copies of TDS certificates have not been filed and accordingly, it cannot be determined as to on what amount the TDS was paid by the defendants with respect to the suit property. The defendant has to prove its defence and the court cannot be instrumental in helping the defendant to procure the income tax returns or assets and liabilities of the plaintiff as the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff and none of the documents sought to be produced Contd....P..2 of 4 : 3 : by the plaintiff and none of the interrogatories required to be answered by the plaintiff are relevant in the facts of the case. It was held in Rajasthan Golden Transport Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Avon Foorwear Industries Pvt. Ltd., 1986 AIR (Del) 286: 1986 (29) DLT 442, that Under order XI Rule 1 any party to a suit may with the leave of the court deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties for eliciting any relevant information, admissions or evidence of 448 material facts to be adduced at the trial and to save expenses of lengthy evidence. The main object of delivering interrogatories by a party is to discover facts in order to facilitate the proof of his own case. However, the power to allow interrogatories to be administered by one party to another is always subject to the discretion of the court. The discretion extends to allowing or refusing particular interrogatories. It is well settled that interrogatories must be confined to the matters which are in issue or sufficiently material at the particular stage of the action at which they are sought to be delivered or to the relief claimed. [Para 105, Haisbury's Laws of England (supra)]. The proviso to Order XI Rule 1 in terms states that the interrogatories which do not relate to any matter in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross examination of a witness. In other words, the interrogatories sought to be served must have reasonably close connection with the matters in question. They must not be unreasonable, vexatious, proflix, oppressive or scandalous. Further, they must not be of a fishing nature i.e. they refer to some distinct and Contd....P..3 of 4 : 4 : existing state of circumstances and must not be put merely in the hope of discovering something which may help a party interrogating to make out some case. [see Rofe Vs. Kevorkion, 12936(2) All ER 1334] 5 Thus, in my considered opinion, both the applications have only been filed to gain time and are irrelevant for determining the matter in controversy and, therefore, both the applications are dismissed. Dictated and announced in the open court on 06.11.2012 (Dr. Neera Bharihoke) ADJI(South) Saket Courts 06.11.2012 Contd....P..4 of 4