Delhi District Court
World Trade Centre vs Bharat Hotels Ltd. And Anothers on 24 February, 2007
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: DELHI
(FAST TRACK COURT)
Suit No.190/06
WORLD TRADE CENTRE
WELFACRE SOCIETY. .....Plaintiff.
Versus
BHARAT HOTELS LTD. AND ANOTHERS .....Defendant.
ORDER
1. By this order, I shall disposed off an application moved by Ld. counsel for plaintiff U/o 11 R 11 & 21 r.w. Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The present suit for Declaration, Permanent and Mandatory Injunction and rendition of accounts has been filed by the plaintiff and the same is pending for disposal.
The plaintiff had earlier moved an application under the provisions of Order 11 Rules 1, 2 and 12 r.w. Sec.151 CPC wherein it was prayed that the defendant no.1 be directed to answer the interrogatories as contained in the said application. The said application was registered as I.A. No.1623 of 1998.
Vide order dated 14.12.1998, the application was allowed to the extent that the defendant no.1 was directed to answer the interrogatories no. A, B ,C, E, I, J, K, M, N, O, P, Q and R. Later on, the defendant no.1 filed his affidavit on 19.05.1999, in which he filed his answers to the interrogatories but in the said affidavit, the defendant no.1 has not complied the directions in proper perspective as the affidavit lacks the material particulars. The defendant no.1 has omitted to answer sufficiently and in these circumstances it is just necessary and proper that he may be directed to answer further the said interrogatories. It is further submitted that a pare perusal of interrogatory no. A and the answer given by the defendant no.1 would clearly go to show that the defendant no. 1 has not answered the interrogatory no. A in its proper perspective. The interrogatories requires the defendant to give the details of the occupant of the World Trade Centre alongwith the area occupied by each of them. No particular or detail has been given with respect to each of the occupant of the World Trade Centre as was required in the said Interrogatory. The details supplied in the affidavit are totally insufficient and the defendant no.1 is liable to answer further. It is further stated that the interrogatory B is inter connected with interrogatory A and the same has to be answered accordingly. With regard to the interrogatory no. I, it is submitted that a totally incomplete information has been furnished.
It is also prayed in the present application that the defendant no.1 may be also directed to produce documents in support of all the reply to the interrogatories.
3. Copy of the application was supplied to the Ld. counsel for defendant no.1 but no reply was filed by him, rather he preferred to lead his arguments straightway and on raising no objection by Ld. Opposite counsel, the arguments were heard in details.
4. According to Ld. counsel for defendant no.1, the application as filed is a misuse of provisions of law as he has already given reply to the interrogatories satisfactorily and sufficiently. The application is motivated and false.
On the other hand, according to Ld. counsel for applicant the fact that the defendant has not chosen to file the reply demonstrates that he has got no objection to the present application or in any case he has nothing to say in opposition of the said application. The defendant no.1 has failed to answer sufficiently the interrogatories in the affidavit dated 19.05.1999. The answers given by defendant no.1 are totally insufficient, vague and evasive and they are not supported by any documentary material.
5. I have carefully heard the rival submissions of the counsels for the parties. I have also thoroughly perused the entire material placed in the file, particularly, the previous application filed by plaintiff and the contents of the affidavit dated 19.05.199 filed by defendant no.1 as well as the contents of the present application and in my considered opinion only the answers in respect of interrogatories no. A. B & R are insufficient and incomplete and they require further elaboration, information and details. As such, I allow the application to the extent that the defendant no.1 is directed to file the detailed reply of interrogatories no. A, B & R by way of additional affidavit. Alongwith the affidavit he shall also file the necessary supportive documentary materials like invoices/vouchers, statement of accounts, bills etc. With this the application stands disposed off.
(Announced in the open (RAKESH KUMAR)
court today on 24.02.2007) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
DELHI