Allahabad High Court
Sardar Daljit Singh vs Iii Additional District Judge And ... on 16 January, 2014
Author: Ran Vijai Singh
Bench: Ran Vijai Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Order Reserved On 28.11.2013 Order Delivered On 16.1.2014 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 63746 of 2013 Petitioner :- Sardar Daljit Singh Respondent :- Iii Additional District Judge And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddhartha Varma Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Srivastava,Siddhartha Srvastava Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J.
Heard Sri S.K. Verma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddhartha Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddharth Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 13.11.2013 passed by the appellate authority in Rent Control Appeal No. 14 of 2010 (Sardar Daljeet Singh Vs. Ram Kumar Bajpai) by which the petitioner's application no. 130(ga) has been rejected.
The facts giving rise to this case are that it appears the respondent no. 2, claiming himself to be the landlord, has filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972, seeking release of the shop in question, which is in occupation of the present petitioner, on the ground of expansion of the boundaries of Shop No. 132, which is adjacent to the eastern side of the shop in question situated at Subhash Nagar, Bareilly. The release application, being P.A. Case No. 24 of 2003, was allowed on 19.7.2010. Aggrieved by this order, the present petitioner has filed an appeal, which was numbered as Rent Control Appeal No. 14 of 2010 (Sardar Daljeet Singh Vs. Ram Kumar Bajpai). In the said appeal, the petitioner filed interrogatories requiring him to answer the following questions:
"1. Are you the owner in your name or not of the shop which situates in the east of the shop in dispute which is alleged to be expanded by you by removing its western wall for assimilating the shop in dispute with it?
2. Whether there is any sale-deed or any deed of transfer in your name for your ownership in respect of the shop which situate in the east of the shop in dispute if so whether such a document is a registered or unregistered ownership document, please reply the interrogatory with detailed particulars with the name of transferor and the particulars of registration if any?"
An objection was filed by the landlord-respondent stating therein that through the present interrogatories, finger has been raised on the title of the respondent (landlord) with respect to shop no. 132, which was disputed earlier also before the Prescribed Authority and taking note of that, release application was allowed, therefore, the same thing cannot be questioned through interrogatories. Further, the same kind of amendment was sought by the present petitioner through application no. 62(ga), which has already been rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 6.2.2013, therefore also the application of the petitioner deserves to be rejected. The appellate authority, taking note of the above facts, rejected the petitioner's application by the impugned order.
Sri Verma, learned Senior Counsel, while assailing this order, has submitted that repeatedly the Apex Court is insisting to adopt the procedure of shorting the litigations and in that regard, he has invited the attention of this Court towards the decision of the Apex Court in A. Shanmugam Vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalnai Sangam (AIR 2012 (3) SC 2010). Particular attention has been drawn towards paragraphs 26, 29 and 30. In his submissions, the sale deed is the crucial piece of evidence and in case the sale deed is produced, everything can be sorted out and if the respondent had purchased the shop no. 132 in the year 1998 from Smt. Bhagwati Devi, then matter ends. Attention has also been drawn towards section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has also placed reliance upon para 6 in Bhakta Charan Mallik Vs. Nataorar Mallik and Others (AIR 1991 Orissa 319). Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment in SVR Mudalia (dead) and Others Vs. Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dear) and Others (JT 1995 (3) SC 614), wherein the Apex Court has observed that in case the required documents are not produced, the inference may be drawn against the person not producing the evidence. His further submission is that the appellate authority has erred in not taking into consideration the provisions contained under section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as section 91 of the Evidence Act. His entire insistence is that in case the sale deed is produced before the appellate authority, it will shorter the litigation and the matter shall come to an end.
Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent contended that prior to fling of interrogatories, the application nos. 62(ga) and 101(ga) were filed challenging the title of respondent no. 2 over the shop in dispute, which has already been rejected and that order has become final. In his submissions, a thing which could not be obtained directly, cannot be permitted to be obtained indirectly. Further, the factum of execution of sale deed had already been stated in the release application and objection to the same was filed by the present petitioner. Taking note of that, a comprehensive judgment was passed by the learned Prescribed Authority allowing the release application and at the appellate stage, filing of such interrogatories are not permissible. In his further submission, at the appropriate level, the petitioner has admitted the status of respondent as landlord, therefore, also no infirmity can be attached to the impugned orders and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
Sri Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the sale deed is the crucial piece of evidence and production of which will shorter the litigation. In his submissions, as the petitioner is not the owner of the aforesaid shop, therefore, the release application itself was not maintainable. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in A. Shanmugam Vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalnai Sangam (AIR 2012 (3) SC 2010). Particular attention has been drawn towards paragraph nos. 26, 29 and 30 of the aforesaid judgment, which read as under:
"26. As stated in the preceding paragraphs, the pleadings are foundation of litigation but experience reveals that sufficient attention is not paid to the pleadings and documents by the judicial officers before dealing with the case. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the parties to investigate and satisfy themselves as to the correctness and the authenticity of the matter pleaded.
29. Ensuring discovery and production of documents and a proper admission/denial is imperative for deciding civil cases in a proper perspective. In relevant cases, the Courts should encourage interrogatories to be administered.
30. Framing of issues is a very important stage of a civil trial. It is imperative for a judge to critically examine the pleadings of the parties before framing of issues. Rule 2 of Order X CPC enables the Court, in its search for the truth, to go to the core of the matter and narrow down, or even eliminate the controversy. Rule 2 of Order X reads as under:-
"2. Oral examination of party, or companion of party. - (1) At the first hearing of the suit, the Court -
(a) shall, with a view to elucidating matters in controversy in the suit, examine orally such of the parties to the suit appearing in person or present in Court, as it deems fit; and
(b) may orally examine any person, able to answer any material question relating to the suit, by whom any party appearing in person or present in Court or his pleader is accompanied.
(2) xxxxxxxxxxxxx (3) xxxxxxxxxxxx."
The attention has also been drawn towards the decision of Orissa High Court in Bhakta Charan Mallik Vs. Nataorar Mallik and Others (AIR 1991 Orissa 319). In paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment, following averment has been made:
"6. Order 11, Rule 1, C.P.C. reads as follows:-
"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. "
Obviously the purpose of this rule is to enable a party to require information from his opponent for the purpose of maintaining his own case or for destroying the case of the adversary. The main object of interrogatories is to save expenses and shorten the litigation by enabling a party to obtain from his opponent information as to the facts material regarding the question in dispute between them or to obtain admission of any facts which he has to prove on any issue which is raised between them. As a general rule, interrogatories are to be allowed whenever the answer to them will serve either to maintain the case of the party administering them or to destroy the case of the adversary. The power to serve interrogatories as it appears is not meant to confined within narrow technical limits. It should be used liberally whenever it can shorten litigation and serve the interest of justice. However, this case be exercised within certain limits. The power to order interrogatories to be served and answer should be used with considerable care and caution, so that it is not abused by any party. A party entitled to interrogate his opponent with a view to ascertain what case he has to meet and the facts relied on and to limit the generality of the pleadings and find out what is really is in issue. See AIR 1934 Nagpur 181 Shamrao V. Motiram. At the same time interrogatories must be confined to facts which are relevant to the matters in question in the suit. Interrogatories which are really in nature of cross-examination will not be allowed see AIR 1972 SC 1302 Raj Narain Vs. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi.
In AIR 1914 Calcutta 767 Baijnath Kedia Vs. Raghunath Prasad, his Lordship has opined that interrogatories can be administered in the same manner as in England for discovering facts in issue. This is how his Lordship has put it (at page 768):
".........So far as I can see, it is nowhere suggested that a party to a suit was not entitled to discovery relating to the facts directly in issues on the pleadings. As a matter of fact, if you once come to that conclusion at all the rules relating to discovery by interrogatories would be practically useless, because if you cannot interrogate as regards the facts put directly in issue by the pleadings. I do not know what you can interrogate upon.............."
In ILR (1964) Cuttack 958 Ganga Devi v. Krushna Prasad Sharma, his Lordship while considering as to whether interrogatories can be administered in respect of the matter arising out of S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1965 as an order u/S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is interlocutory in the sense that it arises out of a divorce proceeding. His Lordship has observed: -
"Even assuming that S.141, Civil Procedure Code, has no application to interlocutory proceedings in a suit, the Court can issue interrogatories u/S. 151, Civil Procedure Code. In respect of matter arising u/S. 24 of the Act, there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure expressly prohibiting that the remedy, prescribed in Order 11, would not be available to interlocutory proceeding. In the absence of an express prohibition, it is now well settled in AIR 1962 SC 527 Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seh Hiralal that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice. The Court can, therefore, u/S. 151, permit interrogatories being served to shorten the prolonged course of interlocutory proceedings.
8. It would now be pertinent to examine the scope of Order 11, Civil Procedure Code. The main object of interrogatories is to save expenses by enabling a party to obtain an admission from his opponent which makes the burden of proof easier. It would certainly not to be extended to prying into the evidence wherewith the opposite-party intends to support his case..............."
The Calcutta High Court decision in Baijnath Kedia's case (supra) was followed by this Court in the case of Ganga Devi Vs. Krushna Prasad Sharma: AIR 1967 Orissa 19 wherein it was observed (at page 23):
"............... These, in substance, are gene3rally the matters to which interrogatories should be directed. Under O.11, C.P.C. interrogatories can be administered in the same manner as is done in England, for discovering the facts in issue..........."
In Civil Revision No. 354 of 1983, disposed of on 23.6.1986, Banchhanidhi Nayak v. Bhagabat Goswami Thakur Sebayat His Lordship has observed:
"............From the provisions stated above, it is clear that while considering the question for leave to deliver interrogatories the court has to consider whether the interrogatories submitted are necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs..........."
In (1988)1 OLR 379:(AIR 1989 Orissa 216) Shri Janaki Ballav Patnaik V. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. his Lordship has observed (at page 217 of AIR):
"Every party to a suit is entitled to know the nature of his opponent's case, so that he may know beforehand what case he has to meet at the hearing. But he is not entitled to know the facts which constitute exclusively the evidence of his opponent's case, the reason being that it would enable an unscrupulous party to tamper with his opponent"s witnesses, and to manufacture evidence in contradiction, and so shape his case as to defeat justice. The nature of a plaintiff's case is disclosed in his plaint. The nature of a defendant's case is disclosed in his written statement. But a plaint or a written statement may not sufficiently disclose the nature of a party's case, and to make good the deficiency, either party may administer interrogatories in writing to the other through the Court..........."
In (1987)1 OLR (M/s Utkal Milling Industries v. M/s Anand Kumar Chhaganlal), considering the scope of Order 11, his Lordship has opined (at page 370):-
"........... Keeping the principles of aforesaid decisions and the legislative intention, the trial Court ought to have considered whether the interrogatories would help the fair trial and would save the cost of litigation which are the two material considerations for granting leave, apart from the objections as indicated in Rule 6 of Order 11, C.P.C., which have not been raised in this case. Availability of the answer in the written statement is not a ground to refuse the leave and the refusal as in this case is, therefore, based on extraneous considerations."
So far as the decision of the Apex Court in the case of A. Shanmugam (supra) as well as in Bhakta Charan Mallik (supra) are concerned, in both the decisions, the emphasis has been laid down to shorten the litigation as the object of the interrogatories is to save expenses and shorten the litigation by enabling the party to obtain from his opponent information as to the facts material regarding the question in dispute between them or to obtain admission of any facts which he has to prove or any issue which is raised between them, which makes the burden of proof easier.
Here in this case, raising finger on the title of the landlord, the petitioner has already filed amendment application, which has already been rejected, which he wants to re-agitate by way of interrogatories. I am of the considered opinion that the provisions of section 30 of the CPC are meant to use the process of law for shortening the litigation and not to abuse and further, the provisions contained under section 30 cannot be used as a device either to circumvent the earlier orders on the same kind of applications or to neutralize the earlier orders passed on such type of applications. The cases cited by the petitioner are distinguishable on the facts.
The petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in SVR Mudalia (dead) and Others Vs. Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dear) and Others (JT 1995 (3) SC 614), wherein the apex court has held that in case the required documents are not produced, the inference may be drawn against the person not producing the evidence.
So far as the above case is concerned, it may be observed that as this Court has already held that the answer of interrogatories was not necessary, therefore, the above cases are of no help to the petitioner.
Further, the court cannot permit the appellant to collect the evidence through respondent. In view of the facts that the tenant's application to the same effect has already been rejected by the appellate court and the factum of the sale deed has already been averred in the release application, to which reply has already been given, and the learned Prescribed Authority has already adjudicated thereon and the order of learned Prescribed Authority is subject matter of appeal, therefore, at this stage, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the dispute regarding the title of the landlord through interrogatories.
I do not find any error in the order passed by the learned court below. The writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed.
The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order of this Court without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the learned counsel for the parties and without being influenced by any observation made on merit of the appeal. In case any adjournment is sought, that may only be granted after imposing cost not less than 350/- to the party seeking adjournment with the direction to deposit the cost on or before the next date fixed. In case of non-deposit of cost, the right of the defaulting party to participate in the further proceeding shall be closed.
Order Date :-16.1.2014 Amit Mishra