Delhi High Court
Anil Sharma & Others vs Mahesh Dass Thru Lrs & Others on 15 September, 2011
Author: V. K. Jain
Bench: V.K. Jain
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Pronounced on: 15.09.2011
+ CS(OS) 1589/2000
ANIL SHARMA AND ORS. ..... Plaintiffs
Through Mr. V.C. Rishi, Adv.
versus
MAHESH DASS THRU LR'S AND ORS. ..... Defendants
Through Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv.
Dr. Arun Mohan, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Shalini
Kapoor, Adv. for D-3 to 19.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No.
in Digest?
V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)
IA............/2011(to be numbered) (filed by the plaintiffs under Order 11 R.7 r/w. S.151 & 114 of CPC) IA............/2011 (to be numbered) (filed by plaintiffs u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 11 Rule 7 r/w S. 151 & 114 CPC)
1. Vide order dated 26.05.2011 passed in IA 8737/2011, the plaintiffs were directed to answer the interrogatories which formed part of the application, unless they claimed that one or CS(OS)No1589/2000 Page 1 of 8 more of them were scandalous or irrelevant or were not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of this suit, or were not sufficiently material or they claimed any privilege or felt that there were some other reasonable ground for not answering those interrogatories. Vide IA.......................(to be numbered), filed under Order XI Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs have sought the setting aside of the order dated 26.05.2011 and striking down the interrogatories. The other IA has been filed for condonation of delay in filing application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Rule 6 & 7 of Order 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure are relevant for the purpose of these applications and read as under:-
6. Objections to interrogatories by answer.- Any objection to answering any interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit, or that the matters inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage[or on the ground of privilege or any other ground], may be taken in the affidavit in answer.
7. Setting aside and striking out interrogatories.- Any interrogatories may be set aside on the ground that they have been exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously, or struck out on the ground that they are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous :CS(OS)No1589/2000 Page 2 of 8
and any application for this purpose may be made within seven days after service of the interrogatories."
3. It would thus be seen that the interrogatories can be set aside by the Court if it finds that they have been exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously. They can also be struck down on the ground that they are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous.
4. As regards the first interrogatory, I find that though in para 11 of the amended plaint, it has been alleged that notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act invoking the emergent provisions were issued vide No.F.9(5)/79-L&B(i) dated 19.1.1990, there is no reference to separate notification one under Section 4 and the other under Sections 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. Vide first interrogatory, the defendants want the plaintiffs to answer as to whether it is a fact or not that for acquisition of the suit property, notification under Section 4 bearing No.F.9(5)/79- L&B(i) was issued on 19.2.1990 followed by notification No. F.9(5)/79-L&B(ii)/13182 on 25.05.1990. Since, not only there is difference in the date of the first notification given in para 11 of the amended plaint and in interrogatory No.1, the plaintiffs CS(OS)No1589/2000 Page 3 of 8 have not at all referred to the notification under Sections 6 & 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, the first interrogatory needs to be answered by the plaintiffs and the same is not covered under any of the grounds mentioned in Rule 7 of Order 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. The second interrogatory relates to the award stated to have been passed on 22.05.1992, awarding compensation of Rs.20.96 lakhs in respect of the suit property. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the defendants is that no one is likely to pay more than Rs.3 crores which the plaintiffs claim to have paid to the defendants for the suit land when it hasd been acquired by the Government for a compensation of about Rs.21 lakhs. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that receipt of the amount paid by the plaintiffs was acknowledged by defendants No.1 to 19 in the Agreement to Sell. This, however, is disputed by the learned counsel for the defendants who states that in fact only a sum of Rs.50 lakhs was paid to the defendants, after the award had been made. I, however, need not go into the truthfulness or otherwise of these statements since, I feel that if the plaintiffs have a knowledge with respect to the award subject matter of interrogatory No.2, there is no reason why they should not answer this CS(OS)No1589/2000 Page 4 of 8 interrogatory. I, therefore, find no valid objections to the plaintiffs answering interrogatory No.2.
6. Vide third interrogatory, the defendants want to know the date and place at which the agreement referred in para 10 of the amended plaint was entered into between the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 and defendants No.1 to 19 and what were the documents executed at that time. I find that in para 10 of the amended plaint, it has been stated that defendants No.1 to 19 agreed to sell land in dispute when Rs.5 crores were offered to them by plaintiffs No.1 & 2 for the land along with the structures. The date of the alleged agreement, however, has not been given either in para 10 or elsewhere in the plaint. There is no reason why the plaintiffs should not give the date of the oral agreement pleaded by them as also the place at which the agreement is alleged to have been entered into between plaintiffs No.1 & 2 and defendants No.1 to 19. As regards the documents, if any, executed at the time of the Agreement to Sell, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that they have filed the Power of Attorney executed in the year 1991 as also the documents executed in the years 1994 onwards. I, however, notice that in para 10 of the amended plaint, the plaintiffs have claimed having made payment of Rs.2.95 crores CS(OS)No1589/2000 Page 5 of 8 between September, 1987 to July, 1989, in addition to payment of Rs.5 lakhs in the year 1992. Therefore, I see no reason why the plaintiffs should not tell the Court as to what documents, if any, were executed at the time defendants No.1 to 19, according to them agreed to sell the suit land to plaintiffs No.1 & 2. Therefore, I find no valid objection to the plaintiffs answering interrogatory No.3.
7. Vide 4th interrogatory, the defendants want a confirmation from the plaintiffs that no payment was made to them by the plaintiffs by cheque, between 19.02.1990 and 02.01.1994. There can be no valid objection to the plaintiffs answering this valid question. If any payment has been made to them by cheque, they must necessarily give particulars of those cheques including their date of encashment and in case no payment is made to them by cheque, they must say so in answer to the interrogatory. Hence, the objection with respect to interrogatory No.4 has no justification.
8. Vide interrogatory No.5, the defendants want the plaintiffs to give particulars of withdrawal of the amount of Rs.2.95 crores which they claim to have paid to defendants No.1 to 19 between September 1987 to July, 1989. Since the receipt of the amount of Rs.2.95 crores is being disputed by the CS(OS)No1589/2000 Page 6 of 8 defendants, though the case of the plaintiffs is that the receipt has been acknowledged in the agreement, the plaintiffs must answer this interrogatory so that the alleged payment can be investigated.
9. Vide interrogatory No.6, the defendants want the plaintiffs to disclose the mode by which payment of Rs.50 lakhs referred in para 15 of the amended plaint was made by them. In case the payment was made in cash, they want the plaintiffs to give particulars such as the entries in the bank from where the money was withdrawn, receipt for the money and the documents executed at the time of payment. I find that in para 15 of the amended plaint, the plaintiffs have pleaded payment of Rs.50,99,000/- between 03.01.1994 to 05.01.1994. The mode of payment, however, has not been disclosed in the plaint. Hence, the plaintiffs must answer this interrogatory as well and disclose as to what was the mode of payment. In case the payment was made by cash and was withdrawn from one or more banks, they should also disclose from which bank it was withdrawn and what documents, if any, were executed at the time of the Agreement to Sell.
10. As regards interrogatory No.7, the learned senior counsel appearing for the defendants states that he does not CS(OS)No1589/2000 Page 7 of 8 press for answer to this interrogatory.
11. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that the defendants have not delivered interrogatories on the plaintiffs after the order was passed by this Court on 26.05.2011. Mr. Arun Mohan, learned senior counsel for the defendants, states that since the interrogatories are contained in the application itself and advance copy of the application was served on the plaintiffs, there was no necessity of separate delivery of interrogatories on the plaintiffs. I also feel that the object is duly achieved when the plaintiffs receive the copy of the application contained the interrogatories to be answered by them and therefore the plea has no merit.
For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in the applications and the same are hereby dismissed. CS(OS) 1589/2000 & IA 7137/2000(O.39 R.1 & 2 CPC) The answer to interrogatories No.1 to 6 will be given by each of the plaintiffs in terms of the order dated 26.05.2011 within four weeks from today.
Renotify for framing of issues on 14th November, 2011.
(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 'sn' CS(OS)No1589/2000 Page 8 of 8