Vaibhav Singhai vs Sadhana Jain on 7 November, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vaibhav Singhai vs Sadhana Jain on 7 November, 2022

Bench: Vishal Dhagat

                                                               1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                            BEFORE
                                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                                                   ON THE 7th OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                                               MISC. PETITION No. 1015 of 2019

                                   BETWEEN:-
                                   VAIBHAV SINGHAI S/O SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR
                                   SINGHAI,   AGED     ABOUT    34   YEARS,
                                   OCCUPATION: LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF
                                   LATE SHRI BABU LAL JAIN R/O SHOP NO.4,
                                   BMBAY SAREE BHANDAR, BENEATH UCO
                                   BANK, JAWAHAR GANJ, JABALPUR (MADHYA
                                   PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                                   (BY SHRI ANIL LALA - ADVOCATE)

                                   AND
                                   SADHANA JAIN W/O SHRI R.K.JAIN, AGED
                                   ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOT MENTION
                                   R/O ABOVE UCO BANK JAHAWAR GANJ , BR.
                                   PURANI CHARHAI, TEHSIL AND DISTT.
                                   JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                                   (BY SHRI RAM PRASAD KHARE - ADVOCATE)

                                 Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the

                          following:
                                                                 ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 25.01.2019 by which trial Court has rejected application of petitioner for filing of interrogatories.

Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that bonafide need of plaintiff/respondent does not exist as husband of plaintiff has acquired a shop and is doing business, therefore, he has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 1 of CPC delivering interrogatories to defendant. It is submitted that trial Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Signing time: 11/9/2022 2:20:04 PM 2 ought to have ordered defendant/petitioner to answer the interrogatories.

Counsel appearing for plaintiff/respondent submitted that husband of plaintiff/respondent has filed an affidavit which is an answer to the interrogatories filed by the defendant. In view of same, no error can be found in the order of trial Court and petition be dismissed.

Counsel for petitioner submitted that interrogatories ought to have been answered by plaintiff and affidavit which has been filed by husband of plaintiff cannot be answered to the said interrogatories.

Heard the counsel for the parties.

Petitioner is merely having a technical objection. Interrogatories raised by defendant has already been answered by plaintiff by way of affidavit of her husband.

Considering the same, writ petition filed by petitioner is dismissed.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE sp/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Signing time: 11/9/2022 2:20:04 PM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court