Bombay High Court
Shri Kaushik S/O Kalyankumar Chaterjee vs Shri Ramshankar S/O Maheshwar Singh And ... on 22 August, 2019
Author: Z.A.Haq
Bench: Z.A.Haq
Judgment 1 wp3328.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.3328 OF 2019
Shri Kaushik S/o. Kalyankumar Chatterjee,
Aged about 53 years, Occu.: Contractor,
R/o. Near Asha Mangal Karyalaya,
Khare Town, Dharampeth, Nagpur.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. Shri Ramshankar S/o.Maheshwar Singh,
Aged about 44 years, Occu.: Contractor,
R/o. Plot No.13, 2nd Bus Stop,
Near Zenda Cowk, Gopal Nagar, Nagpur.
2. Shri Shiv S/o. Liladhar Bende,
Aged about 44 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Near Dharmadhikari Hospital,
Sanh Building, Mahal, Nagpur.
3. Shri Suraj S/o. (now known) Borkar,
Aged : Major, Occu. : Service,
R/o. C/o. Prabhakar Borkar, 163,
Yashyodip Colony, Mahendra Nagar,
Nagpur.
.... RESPONDENTS.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri G.M.Shitut, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri S.V.Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : AUGUST 22, 2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
::: Uploaded on - 04/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 11:48:27 :::
Judgment 2 wp3328.19.odt 1. Heard. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. By the impugned order, the trial Court has permitted the plaintiffs to deliver interrogatories, by allowing the application (Exh.37) filed by the plaintiffs under order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner/ defendant submitted that the trial Court has committed an error by permitting the plaintiffs to deliver interrogatories after the trial commenced and affidavit in lieu of the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff No.1 came to be filed. From the impugned order it is pointed out that after the plaintiff No.1 had filed affidavit in lieu of the examination-in-chief, he failed to attend certain dates of the proceedings and the civil suit was fixed for dismissal for want of prosecution and then application (Exh.37) came to be filed.
5. The learned Advocate for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the trial Court has considered the facts of the case and has exercised its jurisdiction under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure properly and has rightly permitted the plaintiffs to deliver interrogatories to the defendant.
::: Uploaded on - 04/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 11:48:27 :::
Judgment 3 wp3328.19.odt
6. After considering the rival submissions and going through the impugned order, I find that the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction conferred by Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure by permitting the plaintiffs to deliver interrogatories to the defendant belatedly, after commencement of trial. Hence, I find that the impugned order is unsustainable and has to be set aside.
7. Therefore, the following order :
i) The impugned order is set aside.
ii) The application (Exh.37) filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE RRaut..
::: Uploaded on - 04/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 11:48:27 :::