Madras High Court
T.S.Sridhar vs The Young Men'S Indian Association on 28 April, 2018
Author: M.Govindaraj
Bench: M. Govindaraj
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras DATED : 28.04.2018 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. GOVINDARAJ C.R.P.(PD) NO.3680 OF 2016 AND CMP NO.18683 OF 2016 1.T.S.Sridhar 2.S.Ragu ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Young Men's Indian Association A Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 No.49, Moore Street, Chennai - 600 001. 2.R.Nataraj 3.G.Subramanian 4.S.S.Rajkumar 5.R.Rajamohan 6.R.Ramachandran 7.P.G.Sadgurudas 8.G.Porselvam 9.G.Narayanaswamy 10.V.R.S.Sampath 11.B.S.Raghavan 12.S.Rajarathnam 13.V.Murali 14.Muralikrishnan 15.Muthuvelu 16.L.Palamalai 17.V.Anburaj 18.V.Sundararajulu 19.V.M.Sivasubramanian 20.P.Varadarajan 21.M.R.Venkatesh 22.P.M.Sounderrajan 23.R.Anand 24.Henry Thiagaraj ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of dismissal passed by the 16th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.11021 of 2016 in O.S.No.3516 of 2014 dated 26.10.2016 and thereby directing the delivery of the interrogatories on the 1st respondent. For Petitioners : Mr.A.Sirajudeen Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Rajamani For Respondents : Mr.Anand Venkatesh O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order rejecting the request of the plaintiffs in so far as granting leave to deliver interrogatories on the first respondent / first defendant to answer the same.
2. The plaintiffs are the revision petitioners. They filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The defendants/respondents filed a written statement. Issues were framed and trial was completed. During cross examination of D.W.1, certain questions were put to him with regard to the building belonging to the first defendant. D.W.1 had given answers to the same. Not satisfied with the answers, the plaintiffs filed an interlocutory application to summon the Administrative Officer to let in evidence. The summoned witness did not produce the documents and failed to answer properly. Hence, an application under Order 11 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code seeking leave from the Court to serve the interrogatories and to get answer for them.
3. The respondents have objected the application on the ground that the plaintiffs want the answers in a way which is beneficial to them and to support their case. Pleadings were completed, issues framed, trial completed and final arguments are about to commence and that the application was filed with an ulterior motive to protract the proceedings and therefore, the application is not maintainable.
4. The Trial Court considered the issues and found that the issue involved in this case is well known to the plaintiffs' and they have cross examined the defendants and at the time of arguments, filed this application. Since sufficient opportunity was given to the plaintiffs to cross examine the witnesses of defendant, the application does not merit consideration and accordingly, the same was dismissed. Aggrieved over the refusal to grant leave, the petitioners / plaintiffs are before this Court.
5. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that when the petitioners attempted to prove their case by examining the witnesses summoned by them, they have given evasive answers and deposed that the required details can be obtained under Right to Information Act and not from the file. Since the witnesses examined deliberately refuse to answer them, without any option, they have filed an application to deliver the interrogatories and the Court should have granted leave for the same.
6. Controverting the argument, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the application filed at the stage of argument is an after thought. The application filed by the plaintiffs to summon two witnesses was also allowed and the Administrative Officer and former Treasurer of the first respondent Society were also examined and it is only an attempt to harass the defendants and thus, it is a vexatious attempt and therefore, is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
8. Admittedly, issues were framed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs had examined themselves and cross examination of the defendants side is also over. The plaintiffs wanted to prove that the office bearers of the first defendant society have been doing everything without any bonafide intention and mismanage the society and misappropriated the funds and acted against the interest of the society. The Secretary of the Society was examined as D.W.1 and he was also cross examined. Since he stated that the documents are available with the Administrative Officer, an application was filed to summon the Administrative Officer and he also appeared before the Court as a witness and was also cross examined. During cross examination, according to the petitioners, he gave only evasive answers. Therefore, petitioners filed an application seeking leave to deliver the interrogatories. The interrogatories are as under:
"1. Has not, prior to the year 1995 hostel with mess facility was run for the students in the premise in Gokhale Hall campus situated in Armenian Street, Chennai - 1 and also in NIB buildings, Moore Street, Chennai - 1.
2. Has not, the students hostel in those above two campuses have been closed and if so from when?
3. Has the furnitures and utensils used in the above two hostel facilities are still available with the first defendant and if so, the details of those furnitures and utensils.
4. If not available, how they were disposed and when and to whom?
5. What is the total built up area in square feet in the administrative block constructed in the suit property and the total amount spent for constructing that block?
6. In what mode the contract to construct the administrative block was granted, who had participated in the bid, their names and addresses and to whom it was given?
7. Has not, the Gokhale Hall, before its demolition had hand railings, iron steps and heavy iron materials, steps, grills, balconies, windows and doors made of teakwood, rosewood and iron castings and their numbers and descriptions?
8. Has not, they are available with the first defendant at present?
9. If not available, in whose hand they are available now and the steps taken by the 1st defendant to recover them;
10. Is it a fact that the contractor with whom the contract for demolition of the Gokhale Hall was given had removed those items?
11. Is it a fact that the entire amount collected from the contractor engaged for demolition of the Gokhale hall was returned to him after making TDS?
12. Has not, the 1st defendant partially demolished the Gokhale Hall and stopped the further demolition in view of the stay ordered by the Madras High Court?
13. Is it a fact that the defendants 2, 4 to 8, 10, 13, 15 to 24 had paid less than Rs.20,000/- as one time subscription for their admission in the 1st defendant as life member.
14. Is it a fact that the 9th defendant is the President of the Rajaji Center for Public affairs?
15. Is it a fact that the ground floor of the Administrative Block in the suit property have been given to Rajaji Center for public affairs to conduct its programme and if so for what rent?
16. Has not, the approval of the High Court under Sec.92 CPC has been obtained by the 1st defendant for its proposed demolition of the buildings and reconstruction in the suit property?
17. When the eviction order was passed by the trial Court against the Palimer hotel management and when that tenant was evicted?
18. What is the total amount due from the Palimer hotel to the 1st defendant towards rent and damages?
19. What is the case number of the legal proceeding initiated by the 1st defendant to collect that arrears and the stage of that proceeding?
20. Has not, the office bearers of the 1st defendant including the President, Treasurer, Honorary Secretary, Vice President and trustees were elected by the Annual General Body meeting of the 1st defendant to those posts?
21. Was there any nomination filed by all those persons elected to the Governing body in the General Body meeting held on 26.10.2013 and if so when?
22. Has not, the Registrar of Societies, Chennai North, Chennai has in his proceeding No.34601/I-5/I-3/2002 dated 4.6.2007 directed the 1st defendant that the office bearers to the 1st defendant can be elected only by and in General body meeting of the members and not by Governing body? "
9. I have also given my anxious consideration to the cross examination of D.W.1 which reads as under:-
"gp/rh/1 ? kjd; re;jh; taJ 64 j/bg ? bey;iyag;gd;
//////// 4y; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sjh vd;why; rhl;rp Fwpg;gpl;L ve;j tpjpKiwfs; rk;ke;jg;gl;l jpUj;jk; vd;W nfl;lhy; vd;dhy; gjpy; mspf;f Koa[k; vd;W brhy;fpwhh;/ ,e;j tHf;fpw;fhf gp/rh/M4 I nghypahf jahh; bra;J jhf;fy; bra;Js;nshk; vd;why; rhpay;y/ jhth brhj;jpy; 6 fl;ol';fs; cs;sjh vd;why; rhl;rp 5 fl;ol';fs; cs;sJ vd;W brhy;fpwhh;/ jhth brhj;jpy; xU fl;olk; ehd;F kho fl;olk; bfhz;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ me;j ehd;F kho bfhz;l fl;olj;ij Administrative Block vd;W brhy;nthk;/ mJ 2001y; tpLjpfshf gad;gLj;jg;gl;lJ vd;why; rhl;rp Mkhk; vd;Wk; jw;nghJ mit cgnahfg;gLj;j Koahj epiyapy; cs;sJ vd;Wk; brhy;fpwhh;/ jhth brhj;jpy; ehuhazrhkp gpshf; $pk;khft[k; nlgps; bld;dpf;fhft[k; gad;gLj;jg;gLfpwJ vd;why; rhl;rp jw;nghJ fl;olk; cgnahfg;gLj;j ,ayhj epiyapy; cs;sjhy; nkw;go fhhpa';fSf;fhf gad;gLj;jtpy;iy vd;W brhy;fpwhh;/ nkw;go ehuhazrhkp gpshf; 1988y; fl;o Kof;fg;gl;ljh vd;why; rhl;rp mJgw;wp jdf;F bjhpatpy;iy vd;W brhy;fpwhh;/ cwh!;lyhf gad;gLj;jg;gl;L te;j xU fl;olk; jhth brhj;jpy; cs;sJ vd;why; rhp jhd;/ me;jf; fl;olj;ij 1988y; fl;o Koj;njhk; vd;why; rhl;rp mJ gw;wp jdf;F bjhpatpy;iy vd;W brhy;fpwhh;/ brd;id mh;nkdpad; bjUtpy; cs;s nfhfny cwhy;. NIB Building Moor Street brd;id?1 kw;Wk; jhth brhj;J Mfpa K:d;W ,l';fspy; v';fs; r';fk; rk;ke;jg;gl;l tptufhu';fs; elj;jp tUfpnwhk; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ jw;rkak; brd;id mh;bkdpad; bjUtpy; cs;s nfhfny cwhypy; v';fs; r';f eltof;iffs; vJt[k; nkw;bfhs;tJ ,y;iy/ Vw;fdnt brd;id mh;nkdpad; bjUtpy; cs;s nfhfny cwhypy; j';Fk; tpLjpahf ,Ue;J te;jjh vd;why; rhl;rp mJ gw;wp jdf;F bjhpatpy;iy vd;W brhy;fpwhh;/ brd;id mh;nkdpad; bjUtpy; cs;s nfhfny cwhiy g[uhjd fl;olk; (Heritage Structure) vd;W murh';fk; mwptpj;Js;sJ vd;w rhl;rp mJ gw;wp jdf;F bjhptpy;iy vd;W brhy;fpwhh;/ nkw;go brd;id mh;nkdpad; bjUtpy; cs;s nfhfny cwhypd; xU gFjp ,of;fg;gl;L kPjKs;s fl;olk; jhd; jw;nghJ ,Ue;J tUfpwJ vd;why; rhl;rp mJ gw;wp jdf;F bjhpahJ vd;W brhy;fpwhh;/ 07/04/2016 mry; tHf;F vz;/3516/2014 gp/rh/1 ? kjd; re;jh; taJ 64 j/bg ? bey;iyag;gd;
rhl;rp ,d;W 07/04/2016 miHf;fg;gl;L rj;jpa gpukhzk; bra;ag;gl;L thjp jug;gpy; Fwf;F tprhuiz bjhlh;r;rp/ ehd; 1k; gpujpthjp r';fj;jpd; Ma[l;fhy cWg;gpduhf 2015k; tUlj;jpypUe;J ,Ue;J tUfpnwd;/ ehd; mjw;F gy tUl';fSf;F Kd;ghf 1k; gpujpthjp r';fj;jpy; rhjhuz cWg;gpduhf ,Ue;J te;njd; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ mh;nkdpad; bjUtpy; cs;s nfhfny cwhy; tpyhrj;jpy; Student Hostel ,Ue;jJ vd;why; rhl;rp mJ gw;wp jdf;F bjhpatpy;iy vd;W brhy;fpwhh;/ nkw;go mh;nkdpad; bjUtpy; cs;s fl;olk; cgnahfg;gLj;jg;glhky; jw;nghJ ,Ue;J tUfpwJ vd;why; rhl;rp fl;olk; gad;gLj;j Koahky; ,Ug;gjhy; mJ canahfj;jpy; ,y;iy vd;W brhy;fpwhh;/ mh;nkdpad; bjUtpy; cs;s fl;olj;ij ,of;ff;TlhJ vd;gJ rk;ke;jkhf brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tHf;F ele;jJ vd;why; rhl;rp mJ gw;wp jdf;F bjhpahJ vd;W brhy;fpwhh;/ cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; nkw;go mh;nkdpad; bjUtpy; cs;s fl;olj;ij ,of;ff;TlhJ vd;W cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;L mjw;F vjpuhf 1k; gpujpthjp r';fk; cr;r ePjpkd;wj;jpy; nky;KiwaPL bra;Js;sJ vd;why; rhl;rp mJ gw;wp jdf;F bjhpahJ vd;W brhy;fpwhh;/ nkw;go mh;nkdpad; bjUtpy; cs;s fl;olj;jpy; ,Ue;j midj;J gpuhjd bghUl;fisa[k; 1k; gpujpthjp r';fj;jhy; mjpfhuk; bfhLf;fg;gl;l fhd;l;uhf;lh;fs; vLj;J brd;W tpl;lhh;fs; vd;W brhd;dhy; rhl;rp mJ gw;wp jdf;F bjhpahJ vd;W brhy;fpwhh;/ jhth fl;olj;ij ,og;gJ rk;ke;jkhf kPl;o'; ele;jnghJ me;j kPl;o';fpy; ehd; fye;J bfhs;stpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/ nkw;go jhth fl;olj;ij ,og;gJ rk;ke;jkhf eilbgw;w ve;j xU mYtypYk; ehd; g';F bgwtpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/ jhth fl;Lkhdj;ij ,og;gJ rk;ke;jkhf ahh;. vg;nghJ. v';F. vjw;fhf Kot[ bra;jhh;fs; vd;gJ vdf;F neuoahf bjhpahJ/ v';fs; r';fj;jpw;F brhe;jkhf NIB Building brd;id K:h; Street vd;w tpyhrj;jpy; cs;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ NIB Building brd;id K:h; Street tpyhrj;jpy; cs;s fl;olj;jpy; Rkhh; 10 tUl';fSf;F Kd;dhy; cwh!;ly; itj;J elj;jg;gl;L te;jjh vd;why; rhl;rp ,y;iy vd;W gjpy; mspf;fpwhh;/ 1k; gpujpthjp r';fj;jpy; 2 ou!;ofs; ,Uf;fpwhh;fsh vd;why; rhl;rp ,y;iy vd;W brhy;fpwhh;/ ou!;ofs; vd;w bgahpy; gjtpa[k; fpilahJ vd;why; rhl;rp Mkhk; vd;W brhy;fpwhh;/ th/rh/M/1 bye laws tpjp 12y; 1k; gpujpthjp r';fj;jpy; 3 ou!;ofs; ,Uf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W brhy;yg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ 1k; gpujpthjp th';Fk; brhj;Jf;fs; ou!;ofs; bghWg;gpy; ,Uf;f ntz;oaJ vd;W brhy;yg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ jhth brhj;jpy; ,Uf;Fk; midj;J fl;ol';fisa[k; ,oj;J tpl;L g[Jg;gpf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W jpl;lkpl;Ls;nshnkh vd;why; rhl;rp midj;J fl;ol';fisa[k; ,of;f ntz;Lk; vd;gJ jpl;lk; ,y;iy vd;Wk; xU gFjpia kl;Lnk ,oj;J tpl;L g[Jg;gpf;f jpl;lkpl;oUe;njhk;/ ve;bje;j fl;olj;ij ,of;f ntz;Lk; vd;W Kot[ bra;ag;gl;lJ vd;w tptuj;ij jw;nghJ brhy;y ,aYkh vd;why; rhl;rp governing body meeting itj;J Kot[ bra;jjhy; jw;nghJ mJgw;wp vdf;F bjhpatpy;iy vd;W brhy;fpwhh;/ fl;olj;jpd; xU gFjp ,of;f ntz;Lk; vd;W Kot[ vLg;gjw;F Kd;ghf fl;olj;jpd; jd;ik Fwpj;J rk;ke;jg;gl;l bghwpahshpd; fUj;J bgwg;gl;ljh vd;why; rhl;rp mJgw;wp jdf;F bjhpatpy;iy vd;W brhy;fpwhh;/ jhth fl;olj;jpd; jd;ikia fhz;gpf;Fk; bghUl;L vd; jug;gpy; jhth rk;k;e;jg;gl;l g[ifg;gl';fis jhf;fy; bra;js;nsdh vd;why; ,y;iy/ jhth fl;olj;jpy; ,of;fg;gl ntz;oa gFjp vd;W eh';fs; brhy;Yk; fl;olj;jpd; jd;ik Fwpj;J jw;nghJ vd;dhy; brhy;y Koa[kh vd;why; brhy;yKoa[k;/ Governing body meeting-y; fl;olk; ,og;gJ rk;ke;jkhf vLj;j Kotpw;F ,e;j tHf;F 1k; thjp _jh; Ml;nrgiz bjhptpj;jhh; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ 26/2/2014 md;W ele;j Governing body meeting-y; fl;olk; ,og;gJ rk;ke;jkhf vLj;j Kotpw;F ,e;j tHf;F 1k; thjp _jh; Ml;nrgiz bjhptpj;jhh; vd;why; rhl;rp 26/2/2014 md;W ele;j Governing body meeting-y; 1k; thjp _jh; fye;J bfhz;lhh;/ Mdhy; md;W nkw;go _jh; vt;tpj Ml;nrgiza[k; vjph;g;g[k; bjhptpf;ftpy;iy vd;W brhy;fpwhh;/ vd;dplk; fhz;gpf;fg;gLk; gp/rh/M/1 vd;gJ 26/2/2014 md;W Governing body meeting-y; vLj;j Kot[ ml';fpa Mtzk; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ jhth brhj;jpy; fhz;gpj;J cs;s Administrative Block (eph;thf fl;olk;) vd;w fl;olj;ij ,of;f nghtjpy;iy vd;W rhl;rp brhy;fpwhh;/ nkw;go eph;thf fl;olk; ey;y epiyapy; jhd; cs;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ jhth brhj;J bkhj;jk; 14 fput[z;;l; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ gp/rh/M/1 fhyk; 6 V=y; jhth brhj;J Kgika[k; jhd; ,of;f ntz;Lk; vd;W fz;Ls;sJ vd;whYk; eph;thf fl;olj;ij ePf;fptpl;L kw;w fl;ol';fis ,of;f ntz;Lk; vd;w tifapy; brhy;yg;gltpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/"
10. From the perusal of the evidence, it is seen that the petitioners have effectively cross examined the witnesses on these issues, but they could not get an answer, which is favourable to them or in a way in which they wanted the answers to be. It is well settled principles of law that as per Order 11 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, the Court at its discretion can allow interrogatories at any time and at any stage. In the event, the new facts comes to the knowledge of the parties or a new document is mentioned, which he had no occasion to come across, before the pleadings or during cross examination, the interrogatories can be delivered, in order to save the time and save the cost of the litigation. But in the instant case, the issue for which the interrogatories are sought to be answered, were effectively put to the witnesses and detailed cross examination has been made.
11. In the judgment of Orissa High Court in BHAKTA CHARAN MALLIK VS. NATAORAR MALLIK AND ORS. [AIR 1991 ORI 319] it was held that the purpose 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 be confined within narrow technical limits. It should be used liberally whenever it can shorten litigation and serve the interest of justice. However, this can 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. But, it cannot be extended to numbering into the evidence of the opposite party entered to support his case.
12. In yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in SHRI JANAKI BALLAV PATNAIK VS. BENNETT COLEMAN AND CO. LTD., [(1988) 1 OLR 379 : (AIR 1989 Orissa 216)] it has been observed as under:
"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 plaintiffs 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.........."
13. The present case on hand clearly shows that the interrogatories are nothing but an attempt to get an answer in a way the petitioners want it to be. Further, after putting all these questions unsuccessfully, the petitioners shall not be permitted to deliver interrogatories and that amounts to compel the witnesses of the opposite party to concede their prayer. In fact, as found by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court, the petitioners are attempting to tamper the evidence of the defendants, whereby to get answer to support their case. Order 11 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code is not intended for that purpose and it should be utilized fairly in the interest of justice. The present application is not only fall short of fairness, but also an attempt to tamper the witness of the opposite side and compel them to answer in their favour. The Trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion and rejected the petition on considering the facts that (i) the petitioners were given ample opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the defendant elaborately; (ii) by reopening the case, officials of defendants were summoned as witness and cross examined; (iii) the matter stands posted to final arguments. The reasoning given by the Trial Court is well founded and does not require any interference.
14. The fact remains that the suit is at the final stage of arguments and that this Court has already set a time limit for disposal of the suit and considering all these, a direction is issued to the Trial Court to complete the process and pass orders, on or before 29.06.2018.
15. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition merits no consideration and accordingly, is dismissed with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is also closed.
28.04.2018 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No TK To The 16th Assistant Judge City Civil Court Chennai.
M.GOVINDARAJ, J.
TK C.R.P.(PD) NO.3680 OF 2016 28.04.2018