Kamla Bai vs Sanmaan Singh on 4 September, 2019

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kamla Bai vs Sanmaan Singh on 4 September, 2019

The present petition had been filed by the petitioner challenging the part of order dated 26-7-2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Sironj District Vidisha (M.P.), whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 1 of CPC has been dismissed.

2. It is alleged by Counsel for the petitioner that respondents No. 1 & 2 who were plaintiffs have filed a Civil Suit initially for declaration, restoration of possession, mesne profit. They have further challenged the sale deed made by Kamla in favour of defendants No.2& 3. A written statement has been filed in the Civil Suit contending therein that the Narani Bai was not the legally wedded wife of Ram Singh, as there were no issue, therefore the Ram Singh has kept the Narani Bai and thereafter a son was born. It was further contended that Ram Singh was having one brother namely Deewan Singh and his son Jagdish and also having two sisters Ramkali bai and Raj Bai who are necessary party to the Civil Suit. It is contended that their names have rightly been 2 M.P No.4540/2018 mutated in the revenue records and plaintiff with an intention to grab the property of Ram Singh has preferred the civil suit. The civil suit was amended and the necessary parties were brought on record and the case fixed for evidence. At that time an application under Order 11 Rule 1 of CPC was filed seeking discovery by interrogatories, reply to the aforesaid application was filed and the prayer was made for dismissal of the application. The learned trial court after considering the arguments advanced by the parties has rejected the application by the impugned order dated 26-7-2018 holding that the questions No.1 & 3 have been pleaded by the plaintiff in Paragraph 7 and 8, therefore there is no requirement for grant of leave to discover the fact on interrogatories. As far as, questions Nos. 2 & 4 are concerned the same can be asked during the course of the examination, therefore, the permission cannot be granted. It is alleged by Counsel for the petitioner that the trial court has committed an error in dismissing the application for interrogatories as same are the relevant questions which will ease the work of the trial court and help in proper adjudication of the lists. He has prayed for setting aside of the order with further direction to the trial court to allow the application.

3. Per Contra Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 has submitted that questions asked by way of filing of an application for discovery of interrogatories was not required 3 M.P No.4540/2018 in the matter for the reason that the plaintiff himself has pleaded the aforesaid in his plaint and that can be decided by leading evidence by the parties. There is no requirement of any of the discovery by interrogatories. It is further contended that trial court has rightly considered the aspect and has rightly rejected the application, therefore he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. From the record it is seen that a Civil Suit was filed by the respondents No.1 & 2 (plaintiffs) for declaration, declaring mutation order as null and void for grant of mesne profits and Restoration of possession. A written statement was filed by the defendants during the pendency of the Civil Suit an application was filed under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC seeking discovery by the interrogatories. The reply to the application was filed contending there in that the aforesaid questions have been pleaded by the plaintiff and there is no requirement of discovery by the interrogatories. It was further submitted that it will be a matter of evidence and can be proved by leading evidence. The trial court while deciding the application has considered the aspect that the questions which are formulated for discovery of evidence by interrogatories are clearly mentioned as question No.1 mentioned in paragraph No.7 and question No.3 mentioned in paragraph 4 M.P No.4540/2018 No.8 of the plaint as for as question No. 2 & 4 are concerned, they can be answered by leading evidence, so there is no question for discovery by interrogatories which could have been allowed.

6. Relevant provisions of Order XI Rule 1 CPC is required to be seen;

"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 opposite parties 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.

7. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that the parties may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the aforesaid parties with the permission of the court. The law regarding discovery of interrogatories is settled and was considered in the case of Poonam Mansharamani Vs. Ajit Mansharamani reported in 2016 (1) MPLJ 366, wherein relevance of interrogatories have been considered. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under;

"This provision makes it clear that the issues can be framed on the basis of answers to the interrogatories submitted by the other side. This itself makes it clear like noon day that if issues can be framed on the basis of interrogatories, it is not necessary that entire suit needs to be decided on the basis of interrogatories itself.

5 M.P No.4540/2018

The Court below in its finding opined that the interrogatories suggested by the plaintiff are related with the case. However, in the ultimate conclusion, the Court below opined that the suit cannot be decided on the basis of interrogatories only. Hence, the defendant cannot be compelled to file response to the said interrogatories. In Ramlalsao (supra), a Division Bench of Nagpur High Court opined that the right of a party to deliver interrogatories and get answers from the other side is a valuable right and a party should not be deprived of it. The Court opined that interrogatories often shortens litigation and save expenses."

8. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that though the interrogatories are important. It is held by the Hon'ble High Court that "The common string as per the aforesaid judgment is that the administering of interrogatories is to be encouraged because they may be in aid to bring an action to an end at an earlier stage to the advantage of all the parties concerned. Therefore, interrogatories are required to be examined on the anvil of Order XI of Civil Procedure Code. The trial court is required to examine whether the interrogatories have any reasonable close connection with matter in question."

9. The aforesaid aspect has been considered by the Co- ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 20.6.2017 passed in W.P. No.8373/2016 in case of Nitin Chokse Vs. Rakesh Chokse & Ors. and held as under;

"Perusal of aforesaid provision makes it clear that right of a party to deliver interrogatories and get answer from the other side is a valuable right and a party should not be deprived of it. To facilitate the Court proceedings in a precise and meaningful manner, Order XI of CPC has been devised which has to be seen in 6 M.P No.4540/2018 juxtaposition to Order XIV Rule 3 (b) of CPC which mandates the Court to frame the issues from the allegations made in the pleadings and answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit. Therefore, the Codified Intention is very clear, wherein, answers to the interrogatories get primacy regarding framing of the issues which ultimately determine the controversy in hand. This Court while moving in similar circumstances had dealt with the scope and ambit of Order XI in the case of Poonam Mansharamani Vs. Ajit Mansharamani, 2016 (1) MPLJ 366, wherein, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had held that issue can be framed on the basis of interrogatories and it is not necessary that entire suit needs to be decided on the basis of interrogatories itself. But it can certainly guide the parties and ultimately the Court to proceed accordingly.

Considering the settled legal position vis-a-vis the present fact situation of the case, it is apparent that the trial court has ignored the said legal position and dismissed the application in a slipshod manner without considering the true merit of the provisions contained in CPC in the form of Order XI CPC which is an useful tool for determination of the controversy in precise and meaningful manner. The Court below should have applied its mind on the relevance of the interrogatories submitted by the plaintiff and then should have passed the appropriate orders. Perusal of impugned order reflects the said omission."

10. Thus, from the perusal of the aforesaid settled legal position, it is apparently clear that the learned trial Court has failed to consider the aforesaid settled position of law and has out-rightly rejected the application. It is well settled that if any issue can be resolved at the initial stage by the interrogatories such proposition should be encouraged. In the present case, counsel has proposed four questions as interrogatories. From the perusal of the aforesaid questions, it appears that the fate of the suit could easily be decided and if such questions are being answered the same will be utmost 7 M.P No.4540/2018 important and is helpful in just and proper disposal of the case. Accordingly, the reasons arrived at by learned trial court for rejection of the application does not appear to be good reasons. Therefore, the order impugned is unsustainable and is set aside.

11. The application filed for discovery of interrogatories is hereby allowed. The trial court is directed to proceed further in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.


                                           (Vishal Mishra)
vpn                                             Judge
      VIPIN KUMAR
      AGRAHARI
      2019.09.20
      15:24:54 +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court