State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ram Saran & Anr. vs M/S Parsvnath Developers Ltd. on 5 August, 2020
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI
(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
Date of Hearing: 05.08.2020
Complaint No. 170/2019
IN THE MATTER OF
SH. RAM SHARAN
S/o Sh. Prahlad
SH. PANKAJ AGGARWAL
S/o Late Sh. S.P. Gupta
Both at 839-G, Nangloi Road,
Najafgarh, Delhi ...Complainants
VERSUS
M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD.
Parsvnath Tower,
Near Shahdara Metro Station,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032,
Through its Managing Director/Secretary ....OP
HON'BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
Present: Sh. Aswani Gupta, Counsel for the complainant
Sh. Rakesh Bhardwaj, Counsel for the OP
ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER
(C-170/19) SH. RAM SHARAN VERSUS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. Page 1 of 5
ORDERS ON THE APPLICATION OF THE COMPLAINANTS PRAYING FOR
PERMISSION TO FILE INTERROGATORIES
JUDGEMENT
1. This complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by Sh. Ram Saran and another both residents of Delhi against the Parsvnath Developers is ripe for final hearing, the pleadings in the case being complete. At this stage the complainants have filed an application praying for filing interrogatories. The contents of the said application are as under:-
The OP has filed its affidavit in evidence and the complainant needs to cross examine the OP on the same.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission w.r.t. cross examinations in consumer complaint on OP No. 233/1996 titles as Smt. Indrani Banerjee versus CMO Prakka Super Thermal Power, the complainant is filing a list of interrogatories along with this application to be answered by the OP in order to bring the truth on record, in the first instance.
2. The OPs have filed their reply to the said application opposing the prayer for filing interrogatories, stating, inter alia, as under:-
The application under reply is not maintainable in the eyes of the law as the interrogatories which are sought to be answered by the OP are irrelevant as much as the same are beyond the scope of the relief sought by the complainant/appellant.
The complainant/applicant has sought the following relief:-
a. To pay an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the complainant as and by way of damages for the losses suffered by the complainant due to rise in cost of construction and due to deficiency in services of the OP is not handing over the possession on time.
b. To pay litigation charges of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant.
c. To pass such further orders or directions in favour of the complainant and against the OP in the interest of justice, which this Hon'ble (C-170/19) SH. RAM SHARAN VERSUS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. Page 2 of 5 Commission may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The interrogatories which the complainants wish to place on record are also not relevant as in the complaint no such averment has been made, therefore, the present application under reply is not maintainable.
3. For this purpose relevant provision of order XI Rule 1 of the CPC is indicated below:-
"Discovery by interrogatories:- In any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the OPs or any one or more of such parties and such interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of such persons is required to answer:
Provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same party without an order for that purpose:
Provided also that interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness."
4. This application was listed before the Commission for orders on 23.07.2020 when the counsel for both sides appeared and advanced their arguments on the application, the ld. Counsel for the complainant pressing for the permission in this behalf while the ld. Counsel for the OPs, opposing it primarily on the ground that this is not stage for the purpose and, secondly, the interrogatories are irrelevant for the purpose. I have heard the arguments and considered the rival contentions made by the parties on the application.
5. Short question for adjudication in this application is whether the interrogatories can be allowed at this stage when the matter is ripe for final hearing and evidence by both sides have been filed.
6. For permission or otherwise of the interrogatories the stage of the suit is a very significant to be borne in mind, while deciding an application admitting or permitting interrogatories. The whole idea or (C-170/19) SH. RAM SHARAN VERSUS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. Page 3 of 5 purpose of the provisions contained in Order XI Rule 1 of the Code is to save time and cost by confining the controversy or narrowing down the points of differences or disputes. Hence, the court can be a bit liberal in admitting the interrogatories at the initial stage of a suit but the same standards cannot be applied at the advanced stage of the trial; when the evidence of the parties has begun. Interrogatories cannot be permitted, once the evidence of the concerned opposite party is over.
7. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Company Petition No: 13 of 1967 in the matter of Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. versus Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. decided on 08.07.1968 is pleased to observe as under:-
There are however limits to the utilities of the power to order interrogatories to be answered. Those limits are set by the rules of relevancy, by the demands of decency and propriety, and by the even wider basic requirements of fair play, justice and equity. For example, although one of the object of the interrogatories is to ascertain an adversary's , yet they cannot be permitted to be used y a party, merely to obtain a disclosure beforehand of evidence supporting the adversary's case as this would give one party an unfair advantage over the other. The object of Order XI, Civil Procedure Code, is more akin to that of Order X, Civil Procedure Code, than of cross-examination.
A perusal of the corresponding substantive provisions contained in Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure shows that the Court has been clothed with a power to order discovery or permit interrogatories at any time. Order XI Rule 1 of the Code contemplates service of interrogatories on the opposite party, with a leave of the Court. A close and conjoint reading of these two provisions make it clear that the court can allow service of interrogatories, at any stage of the suit, for which it has been conferred wider discretion, but at the same time, the discretion must be exercised in a judicious way. The information sought to be furnished must have some nexus or relevancy with the dispute in question.
8. Upon perusal of various judgements of High Courts and wading through the commentaries on Order XI Rule 1 of the Code, the (C-170/19) SH. RAM SHARAN VERSUS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. Page 4 of 5 underlying principles of discovery by interrogatories can be catalogued as infra:-
Interrogatories which do not relate to any matter in question in the suit should be deemed to be irrelevant. Interrogatories may be set aside on the ground that they have been administered unreasonably or vexatious or struck off on the ground that they are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous.
9. Having regard to the legal position explained above, the application filed by the complainant praying for the interrogatories at the stage of final hearing when pleadings are complete and evidence by both sides have already been filed cannot be accepted moreso when there appears to be no relevance for adjudication of the complaint.
10. Ordered accordingly. A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as is statutorily required.
11. The complaint be listed for final arguments on 28.08.2020.
(ANIL SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER sl (C-170/19) SH. RAM SHARAN VERSUS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. Page 5 of 5