Delhi District Court
Keshar Devi Baid vs Ravinder Kumar on 25 November, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SURESH KUMAR GUPTA,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 03 (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
Suit No.1430/2009
IN THE MATTER OF :
Keshar Devi Baid .....Plaintiff
Versus
Ravinder Kumar .....Defendant
ORDER
1. The defendant has filed an application U/o 11 rules 1, 12, 14 r/w Sec. 151 CPC with the averments that plaintiff has filed a false suit for recovery of possession of ground floor of property No.52/7A/3C, Jwala Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit property) alongwith damages and mesne profits against him by claiming herself as absolute owner of the suit property. The suit is based upon title so plaintiff has to prove her title in affirmative. The plaint is vague and without details regarding chain of documents from which the plaintiff derives her title. He wants to bring out certain admissions, discovery of facts and documents to cut short the litigation. The plaintiff has alleged that she has become owner of suit property by sale deed dated 02.01.90 executed by her husband Sh. Sampat Baid in her favour on the basis of GPA dated 07.08.86 executed by Smt. Veena @ Veena Tyagi W/o Sh. Vidhya Bhushan Sharma. The plaintiff has not filed any document with respect to the interest and title of Smt. Veena @ Veena Tyagi so the averments made in the plaint are vague and without the documents as Suit No.1430/2009 Page 1 of 5 such plaintiff should answer the interrogatories as shown in annexure A. The plaintiff should also give details of alleged payment made by her. The plaintiff should discover and produce the documents so that he could file the written statement. Hence, this application which is duly supported by an affidavit.
2. The plaintiff filed the reply to the effect that defendant wants to delay the proceedings of the suit. The interrogatories are not relevant as plaintiff would loose in case she fails to prove her case. None of the interrogatories are relevant. The plaintiff has filed the suit not only on the basis of title but also on the basis of her previous possession. The mode of payment is not relevant for the just decision of the case. The plaint is not vague. There is no merit in the application. The application is supported by an affidavit.
3. I have heard Learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case.
4. The plaintiff has filed a suit for possession, damages and mesne profits with respect to the ground floor of the suit property against the defendants. The plaintiff has claimed ownership on the basis of sale deed dated 02.01.90 executed by Sh. Sampat Baid in her favour on the basis of GPA duly executed by Smt. Veena W/o Vidhya Bhushan in his favour. An agreement to sell dated 21.08.06 was executed between the plaintiff and wife of the defendant for the sale of entire suit property for a sum of Rs.25 lacs. On 15.11.06 defendant had broken the locks of first and Suit No.1430/2009 Page 2 of 5 second floor of the suit property and took its possession regarding which FIR No.479/06, PS, Vivek Vihar was lodged against the defendant and his wife.
5. The wife of the defendant has filed a suit for specific performance against the plaintiff and her husband in Honourable High Court of Delhi in which present plaintiff filed the written statement cum counter claim and said suit was later on withdrawn by the wife of the defendant and counter claim was transferred to District Courts due to pecuniary jurisdiction.
6. The defendant has allegedly purchased the suit property on 07.05.07 from one R C Sharma vide registered sale deed dated 07.05.07 and took forcible possession of ground floor of suit property regarding which FIR No.136/09, PS, Vivek Vihar was registered against the defendant and his wife.
7. Though not referred to or relied upon, in AIR 1989 Orissa 216, it was held by their lordship that interrogatories may be administered by a party to his opponent to obtain admission from him to facilitate his own case and the fact that the party has other means of proving the fact in question is not a ground for refusing interrogatories. In AIR 1960 Calcutta 536, it was held by their lordship that the administering of the interrogatories is to be encouraged because they not in frequently bring an action to an end at an early stage to the advantage of all the parties concerned.
8. The interrogatories as drafted by the defendant has to been in the Suit No.1430/2009 Page 3 of 5 backdrop of above stated case of the parties and case law referred to above. Each party to a suit is entitled to know the nature of his opponent case so that the party must know before hand what case he has to meet at the hearing. The interrogatories cut short the litigation.
9. The answer to interrogatory No.1 is necessary to show how Smt. Veena @ Veena Tyagi derived her power to execute the attorney in favour of the husband of the plaintiff. The answer to the interrogatory No.2 is essential as to know who was the actual owner of suit property. The answer to interrogatory No.4 is essential as it is the duty of the plaintiff to place on record the entire documents allegedly in possession with respect to the suit property. The answer to interrogatory No.5 is required as it is the duty to disclose whether the suit property was allegedly purchased by the husband of the plaintiff from Smt. Veena @ Veena Tyagi by paying the sale consideration or it was a simple power of attorney. The answer to interrogatory No.6 is required to ascertain whether all the three names pertain to the plaintiff or not in order to clear the doubt about the exact name of the plaintiff. The answer to interrogatory No.9 is required about the mode of making the payment by plaintiff to her husband whether the payment was in cash or through cheque.
10. The interrogatory No.3 is not relevant because transaction with Smt. Veena @ Veena Tyagi had allegedly taken place on the day when she allegedly executed GPA in favour of the husband of the plaintiff; There Suit No.1430/2009 Page 4 of 5 is nothing on the record that there was any other transaction of husband of the plaintiff with Smt. Veena @ Veena Tyagi. Plaintiff is not supposed to know whether Smt. Veena @ Veena Tyagi is alive or not. This interrogatory is not relevant to shorten the trial. The interrogatory No.7 pertains to the educational qualification and PAN of the plaintiff and said point is not relevant for proving the facts in question. The interrogatory No.8 is also not relevant either directly or indirectly with the facts in issue. The interrogatories No.3,7&8 are not relevant and arise out of the issues.
11. The answer to these interrogatories are required as both the parties are claiming their ownership over the suit property. The interrogatories No.1,2,4,5,6&9 are relevant and arise out of the issues and will shorten the trial and further these interrogatories will be helpful for fair trail.
12. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the application U/o 11 rules 1, 12, 14 r/w Sec. 151 CPC filed by the defendant is allowed. I grant leave to the defendant for the service of interrogatories No.1,2,4,5,6&9 on the plaintiff for her examination on oath to be answered on or before next date of hearing. It be tagged with the case file.
Announced in the open Court on 25.11.2010 (Suresh Kumar Gupta) Additional District Judge03 (East), Karkardooma Court, Delhi / 25.11.2010 Suit No.1430/2009 Page 5 of 5