Delhi District Court
Sh. Ismail vs Sh. Sukhwant Singh Dillon on 15 September, 2008
- :: 1 :: -
IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : DELHI
In the matter of: -
Suit No. 113/2005.
Sh. Ismail. ... Plaintiff.
Vs.
Sh. Sukhwant Singh Dillon. ... Defendant.
- : ORDER : -
1.By this order, I shall dispose of an application u/o 11 r 1 and 2 r/w/s 151 CPC moved by the plaintiff whereby the plaintiff has sought leave to deliver the interrogatories as mentioned in para no. 9A to 9C and seeking directions to the defendant to answer the said interrogatories.
- :: 2 :: -
2.The plaintiff has averred in the application that the case of the plaintiff is that he had taken on rent one room measuring 44 square yards out of plot no. B-4, Sardar Nagar, Near C.C. Colony, Delhi-9 from the defendant. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he was in exclusive possession and use of the said tenanted portion right since the inception of the tenancy without any hindrance till 5.7.2005 when the said room was got forcibly evicted by the defendant and other persons. By way of present application, the plaintiff is seeking the relief to deliver the interrogatories as mentioned in para no. 9A to 9C of the application.
3.This application is duly replied by the defendant wherein it is averred that in para no. 3 of the written statement it is submitted that since the tenant M/s N-
- :: 3 :: -
ecko Dry Cleaners had sub let the suit premises forming part of the tenanted premises let out to them in favour of the plaintiff illegally, the defendant and his brother, as landlord, had filed an eviction petition u/s 14 (i) (b) of the DRC Act, 1958 pursuant to which an eviction order was passed by the Court of Ld. ARC with respect to the tenanted premises and the land lords recovered the possession thereof in execution of the said eviction order. Plaintiff was never a tenant of the defendant or his brother. It is further averred that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to make fishing inquiries into the internal affairs of the members of the family of the defendant. It is, therefore, prayed that the application is misuse and devoid of merits, hence, be dismissed.
4.I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the records. The main object of interrogatories
- :: 4 :: -
is only to save expense by enabling a party to obtain from his opponent information as to the facts material in the question in dispute between them and to obtain admission of facts which he has to prove on any issue which is raised in the suit. However, the parties are not entitled to administer interrogatories for obtaining discovery of facts which constituted exclusively the evidence of his adversaries case or title. Whether the interrogatory is material or not can be tested only with reference to the pleadings and the issue involved and the stage of the suit. Interrogatories which do not relates to any material question in the suit, have to be deemed to be irrelevant notwithstanding that they might be admissible during the oral course of examination of a witness under the Evidence Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Raj Narain Vs. Indira Gandhi reported as AIR 1972 SC 1302 has held that "The questions that may be relevant
- :: 5 :: -
during cross examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. The only question that are relevant as interrogatories are those relating to "any matter in question". The interrogatories served must have reasonably close connection with matter in question."
5.The case of the plaintiff is that he was a lawful tenant under the defendant and he was illegally dispossessed from the suit property. On the basis of these allegations, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction. In order to succeed in the present suit, the plaintiff has to prove that he was the lawful tenant under the defendant and he was illegally dispossessed, therefore, the plaintiff has lis in the present suit only against the defendant and none else. If the plaintiff is able to prove that he was a lawful tenant under the defendant,
- :: 6 :: -
he would be entitled for the relief as prayed in the present suit, however, if the plaintiff is not able to prove that he was lawful tenant under the defendant, the suit would be dismissed. The scope of inquiry is very limited. The interrogatories sought to be made by way of present application has no relevancy with regard to the lis involved in the present suit. The interrogatories sought by way of present application do not relates to the matter in question. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in AFL Developer Pvt. Ltd. & Other Vs. Smt. Veena Trivedi reported as AIR 2000 Delhi 354 has held that "The interrogatories which are of the nature of fishing inquiries cannot be directed to answer and these questions can at best be asked during the cross examination and are not relevant to the matter in question." Thus, the interrogatories sought to be delivered are irrelevant and unnecessary for the purpose of determination of issues involved in
- :: 7 :: -
the present suit. Accordingly, the application is devoid of merits and, hence, dismissed. Announced in the open Court on 15.9.2008.
(PITAMBER DUTT) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DELHI