Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Sh. Harkishan Singh vs Kalra Hospital Srcnc Pvt Ltd on 17 October, 2019

           In the Court of Sh. Narinder Kumar
Additional District Judge­04 (West)Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

MCA DJ No. 35/19

In the matter of:­
Sh. Harkishan Singh
s/o Shri S. Jurjeet Singh
R/o 2A/6, Ramesh Nagar
New Delhi­110015.
                                      ..........   Appellant

                            Versus

Kalra Hospital SRCNC Pvt Ltd.
A­4, 5 & 6, Tulsi Dass Kalra Marg
Kirti Nagar, New Delhi­110015.
Rajesh Kohli (Manager­HR)
                                      ......... Respondent

Date of Institution :09.08.2019
Date of Judgment : 17.10.2019


JUDGMENT

By way of present appeal, appellant has challenged the order dated 16.07.2019 passed by learned Trial Court whereby defence of the appellant ­defendant in suit no. 1251/2017 has been struck of. The reason for striking of the defence of the defendant is that he failed to answer the interrogatories of the plaintiff in prescribed manner and specifically, despite repeated opportunities and directions by the court.

MCA/DJ No. 35/19 page 1

2. Counsel for the defendant ­appellant submits that at the time reply to the interrogatories was filed, same was taken on record and he was not apprised of the fact that this reply was not in the prescribed manner. Learned Counsel further submits that had he been apprised of the defect in the answer to the interrogatories, he would have rectified the errors and all this would have avoided striking of the defence of the defendant.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff­ respondent submits that repeated opportunities were given to the defendant to answer the interrogatories but the defendant failed to reply the interrogatories in the prescribed manner and specifically. Learned counsel adds that answers to the interrogatories were vague answers and not to the point and as such there is no ground to set aside the impugned order.

4. File reveals that affidavit dated 16.10.2018 of the defendant by way of reply to the interrogatories was not got attested and as such the same could not be relied on .

On 31.01.2019, while answering the interrogatories, the defendant filed only reply without any affidavit. At the same time surprisingly defendant filed reply to the application under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC supported by affidavit. This reply was not at all required. What was required from the defendant was answer to the MCA/DJ No. 35/19 page 2 interrogatories and that too in the prescribed manner.

5. This court has shown to learned counsel for the defendant the prescribed format available in the CPC. Learned Counsel admits that reply should have been in the prescribed format and by way of affidavit.

In this situation, court finds that defendant who engaged counsel, could not be made to suffer because of non preparation of the answer to the interrogatories in the prescribed format by his counsel.

In the given situation, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside but subject to cost of Rs. 8,000/­, payable to the plaintiff­respondent.

Defendant is provided one opportunity to file answer to the interrogatories of the plaintiff in prescribed manner and the answer should be very specific.

7. Trial Court Record be returned alongwith copy of this order. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.

6. Parties are directed to appear before learned Trial Court on 01.11.2019.

Announced in the open (Narinder Kumar) Court on 17th October, 2019. Addl. District Judge­04 (West), Digitally signed by NARINDER KUMAR MCA/DJ No. 35/19 NARINDER page 3 Date: KUMAR 2019.10.18 15:14:43 +0530