Delhi District Court
Sh. Sat Narain Gupta vs Sh. Summit Mittal & Ors on 5 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. KADAMBARI AWASTHI CJ 02 (CENTRAL),TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI Suit No : 55/12 In the matter of : Sh. Sat Narain Gupta ...........Plaintiff VERSUS Sh. Summit Mittal & Ors. ...........Defendants Dated : 05.03.2015 Order By this order I shall dispose off an application under Order 11 Rule 2 & 14 read with section 30 & 151 CPC to direct the plaintiff for production of documents on behalf of defendant no.1 to
3. It is submitted that present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of the possession and declaration.
It is submitted that the plaintiff has alleged that his father, Sh. Arjun Dass Gupta is a tenant in the suit property and after his death, the previous landlord i.e. defendant no.4 filed an eviction petitions in the court. It is submitted that the same was withdrawn Suit No : 55/12 Page 1 of 5 on 03.10.2011. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not given the particulars of the eviction petition nor disclosed the name of the court, not produce any copy of the eviction petition as well as written statement which shows that the plaintiff wants to conceal material fact to the court, hence, the applicant wants to put certain queries to the plaintiff with respect to the detail of Eviction Petition Number, title of the eviction petition filed by the defendant no.4.
It is also submitted that the aforesaid interrogatories are relevant and material for the adjudication of the case and the plaintiff has not file the written statement/reply filed by him before the court Controller in the eviction petition on record and he has concealed the material fact, hence it is submitted that the plaintiff is directed to produce the eviction petition as well as the reply, documents/written statement filed by him in the court because the same would be in is power and possession.
It is submitted that the aforesaid interrogatories and the production of documents can bring truth before the court.
A prayer is made accordingly.
Reply to the above application has also been filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 to 3.
Suit No : 55/12 Page 2 of 5It is pertinent to mention that the reply to the application is not in format of an affidavit either though the reply the number of the eviction petition has been revealed by the plaintiff without supplying the certified copies of the same along with reply.
Ld. Counsel for application/defendant also placed relevance on certain judicial precedents in respect of their application. It is submitted that it has been held in CS(OS) 1804/2008 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that in IA No. 895/2013 before this Court under Order XI Rule 21 CPC. This court granted one more opportunity to the plaintiff to answer the interrogatories within 8 weeks vide its order dt. 12th September, 2013 and it was noted that in case failure to reply to the interrogatories within 8 weeks the suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff failed to answer the interrogatories in the period of 8 weeks granted. The plaintiff failed the reply affidavit to the interrogatories only on 11th November, 2013 i.e. after the stipulated date and that too without any application for condonation of delay. Observing of these the suit of plaintiff was dismissed and the plaintiff is dismissed as infructuous.
Furthermore it has been relied upon on 2002 LRL 49 that a party is entitled to ask opponent to disclose relevant documents to Suit No : 55/12 Page 3 of 5 enable it to ask discovery of required documents.
The relevance is also placed on 1996 RLR where it has been held that the parties must freely use interrogatories to obtain admissions of facts which were wrongly denied is W/S. If relevant, these cannot be opposed to prevent impeachment of one's case. These be encouraged as these may obviate necessity of calling any witness and thus shorten trail and help in early decision.
Heard. Perused.
The court is of the opinion that the object and purpose of serving interrogatories is to enable a party to require information from his opponent for the purpose of maintaining his own case & for destroying the case of the adversity. Every party to a suit is entitled to know the nature of his opponents case so that he may know before handed, but he is not entitled to know the facts which constitutes exclusively, the evidence of his opponents case.
In the present case the non applicant/plaintiff has not filed the reply to the interrogatories despite ample opportunity of the court in the prescribed format by way of affidavit. Furthermore, even the supporting affidavit to the reply has not been filed on record.
Suit No : 55/12 Page 4 of 5The court is in the view, that the interrogatories administered to the non applicant/plaintiff is just and appropriate and it would served the end of service and expedite the trial of the case. It is incumbent upon the party to disclose and full material facts his case in the pleadings and it is apparent from this case in hand that it is the own admission of the plaintiff that they had filed an eviction petition before ARC court and the same was dismissed. Merely replying to the queries without production of these documents on behalf of party who is being subjected to interrogatories is not proper.
Taking a lenient view 6 weeks time is given to the non applicant/plaintiff to supply the desire documents as per the interrogatories administered to them by the defendants, failing which the suit of plaintiff may be dismissed as per the provisions of order 11 Rule 21 CPC.
Application allowed.
Let, the matter be renotify on 21.04.2015.
(KADAMBARI AWASTHI) Civil Judge02/Central/Delhi 05.03.2015 Suit No : 55/12 Page 5 of 5