Punjab-Haryana High Court
L.I.C. Of India vs Jagdish Chand on 22 September, 2010
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 22.09.2010
C.R.No.1577 of 2004
L.I.C. of India ...Petitioner
Versus
Jagdish Chand ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present : Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for the respondent.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)
The challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by the learned trial Court on 27.02.2004 whereby, the plaintiff-respondent was permitted to serve interrogatories upon the defendant-petitioner.
The plaintiff-respondent is an employee of the defendant- petitioner. He filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-petitioner from demoting the plaintiff and implementing the order of reversion (demotion). Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent subsequently amended the suit to claim declaration that the order of reversion dated 12.01.2001 is illegal and void. After amendment of the suit, the parties concluded their evidence and when the case was fixed for arguments, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application for permission to serve interrogatories on 24.01.2004. The said application has been allowed by the learned Trial Court on 27.02.2004.
C.R.No.1577 of 2004 2
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the material circumstances and purpose of enacting the provisions of Order XI CPC is to cut short the matter as well as cost of litigation regarding relevant and material facts so that time of the Court and parties as well as energies and money to be incurred by the litigant is saved.
The Hon'ble Allahabad Court in an order passed in Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. (C.P.No.13 of 1867 dated 8.7.1968) considered the purposes of the serving of interrogatories. It was held to the following effect :
"4. Order XI of our Civil Procedure Code closely follows the rules of practice and procedure evolved in England. I have, therefore, considered it not improper to refer to the object of interrogatories according to the rules which prevail in England. The power to serve interrogatories is not meant to be confined within narrow technical limits. The subject-matter of Order XI, Civil Procedure Code, is: "Discovery and Inspection". It has to be remembered that these remedies were evolved by the Chancellor's Court of Equity. The power to order discovery by means of interrogatories should certainly be used liberally whenever it can shorten litigation and serve the interests of justice as observed in Jamaitrai Vs. Motilal Chamaria AIR 1960 Cal. 536, by A.N.Ray, J. of the Calcutta High Court.
5. There are, however, limits to the utility of the power to order interrogatories to be answered. Those limits are set by the rules of relevancy, by the demands of decency and propriety, and by the even wider basic requirements of fair play, justice and equity. For example, although one of the objects of interrogatories is to ascertain an adversary's case, yet then cannot be permitted to be used by a party merely to obtain a disclosure beforehand of evidence supporting to adversary's case as this would give one party an unfair advantage over the other. The object of Order XI, Civil Procedure Code, is more C.R.No.1577 of 2004 3 akin to that of Order X, Civil Procedure Code, than to that of cross-examination."
A Single Bench of Jammu & Kashmir High Court in a judgment reported as Jugal Raj Gandotra and another Vs. Yashpal Sahni and another AIR 1999 J&K 21 has also seized of the matter where the evidence of the defendants was on the verge of being concluded, when the application to serve the interrogatories was filed. The Court declined the application for serving interrogatories at that stage of the proceedings.
In Manohar Lal Vs. LRs of Govind (Civil Writ Petition No.8628 of 2008 decided on 03.02.2010), a Single Bench of Rajasthan High Court relying upon a judgment of Kerla High Court in case of P. Balan Vs. Central Bank of India AIR 2000 Kerla 24, has held that answering the interrogatories might often shorten the trial proceedings and save the time of the Court and parties besides saving expenses for summoning witnesses, documents and the like. As a general rule, therefore, interrogatories are to be allowed whenever the answer to them will serve either to help the party in proving his case or to destroy the case of the adversary. It should be used liberally whenever it can shorten the litigation and serve the interest of justice. Nevertheless, the power is to be exercised with care and caution so that it is not abused by any party.
In Satya Devi Vs. Kanta Rani 1999 (3) PLR 724, this Court has held that the purpose of serving interrogatories, after evidence is led by the parties, is frustrated. It was held to the following effect:-
"3. The purpose of Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code is that a party is entitled to know the nature of the opponent's case. He must know before hand as to what he is to meet at the hearing. Sometimes the plaint and the written statement do not C.R.No.1577 of 2004 4 sufficiently disclose the nature of the parties, case. Therefore, the interrogatories are permitted to be served to elucidate the facts and to know the exact nature of the litigation from the unscrupulous party.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
4. ........It is obvious from the aforesaid that serving of interrogatories have to be encouraged as it is a means of getting admissions and tends to shorten the litigation. It precipitate the controversy and help the Court to come to a rightful conclusion.
5. In the facts of the present case, it has been pointed out that the entire evidence of the parties has been lead. The suit was listed for evidence of the plaintiff in rebuttal. It was at that stage that the interrogatories were served. Once the evidence has been led, as noticed above, and there is very little to be recorded in evidence, then serving of interrogatories will not serve any purpose Fishy interrogatories will not be proper. The very purpose of interrogatories at this stage is frustrated. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was patently in error in allowing the application without recording reasons. The order must be taken to have been passed without jurisdiction."
From the order passed by the learned trial Court, it is apparent that the parties have concluded their evidence but the Court allowed the serving the interrogatories relying upon the judgment reported as Smt. P. Seethamma & ors. Vs. P. Ramakrishana Reddy & ors, 1997 (Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 442, to say that the interrogatories are permissible to be served at any time. The Court found that the defendant has examined one witness which was not its employee but was from the association of University. Therefore, the plaintiff had no opportunity to cross-examine witness from the department.
C.R.No.1577 of 2004 5
It appears that the plaintiff has failed to lead evidence and to fill up the lacunae, devised the mean to serve the interrogatories. It was open to the plaintiff to put interrogatories before the parties were called upon to lead evidence. As held by the Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court in Manohar Lal's case (supra), the interrogatories are to shorten the trial proceedings and save the time of the Court and parties besides saving expenses for summoning witnesses, documents and the like. But once the witnesses have been examined and the parties have concluded their respective evidence, the serving of interrogatories at that stage of proceedings does not serve the purpose for which such provision has been enacted.
The judgment of this Court in Satya Devi's case (supra) has not been relied upon for insufficient reasons by the learned trial Court. There is no distinguishing feature which could permit the learned trial Court to ignore the judgment of this Court.
In view of the said fact, the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from patent illegality or irregularity. The same is, therefore, set aside. The application for serving interrogatories is dismissed.
The revision petition is accordingly allowed.
22.09.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) shivani/Vimal JUDGE