Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vivek Ummatt vs Surinder Kaur on 2 December, 2024
1 ( 2024:HHC:12898 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.32 of 2022 Reserved on 29.11.2024 Date of Decision : 2nd December, 2024 _________________________________________________________ Vivek Ummatt ...... Petitioner Versus Surinder Kaur .......Respondent Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present petition has been filed aggrieved by order dated 13.01.2022, passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No.III, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Eviction Petition No.15/2 of 2017/19, whereby, an application filed under Order 11 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, has been dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the interrogatories (Annexure P-5), response thereto (Annexure P-7) revision 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 ( 2024:HHC:12898 ) petition, other documents appended thereto and the impugned order dated 13.01.2022.
3. The specific contentions of the petitioner are:- (a) That false statement has been made by the respondent while answering the interrogatories; (b) interrogatories have not been properly answered as evasive replies have been given; (c) replies given are self-contradictory and
(d) respondent has feigned ignorance. Per contra learned senior counsel for the respondent has submitted that neither have the interrogatories been not answered nor have the interrogatories been answered insufficiently, answers are not to be to the liking or convenience of the petitioner hence no interference in the present petition is called for.
4. As per the scheme of Order 11 CPC, parties, with the leave of the Court, are allowed to deliver interrogatories to each other relating to matters in question in the suit. As per Rule 1, party to a suit may seek leave of the concerned Court to deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite party. Under Rule 2, the Court is required to decide whether such leave is to be granted. If leave is granted by the Court, the opposite party is required under Rules 8 and 9 to answer the interrogatories in Form No. 3 in Appendix-C of CPC with such variations as circumstances may necessitate.
5. The interrogatories are to be answered by way of an affidavit, which may include any objection to it on account of privilege or otherwise, as prescribed in Rule 6. Further, in terms of Rule 11, if the party interrogated 3 ( 2024:HHC:12898 ) omits to answer or if the answer is perceived insufficient, the party interrogating may apply to the concerned Court for an order directing the party interrogated to answer, or answer further, as the case may be.
6. Insufficient answers would mean incomplete or incoherent answers, and not incorrect answers, since at the time of exchange of interrogatories and answers between the parties, the Court is not required to conduct a summary trial to assess the veracity of the answers. A party seeking answers to his interrogatories from the other party cannot direct the latter to answer the questions in a manner so as to suit the formers liking or convenience.
7. Under Order 11, Rule 22 CPC, the answer given in response to an interrogatory can be used in evidence, and therefore, its correctness and veracity will be established only at trial. Undoubtedly, it is incumbent upon a person answering the interrogatories to be truthful in the answers, and if the person is eventually found to has given false answers, they can be visited with consequences like perjury, in accordance with law, since the answer given in response to interrogatory can be used in evidence under Rule 22. In view of the aforesaid arguments raised by the petitioner that the answers are false, self-contradictory, respondent has feigned ignorance and are not to the liking of the petitioner are meaningless at this stage.
8. Section 30 CPC provides that the Court can also exercise powers on its own motion and pass such orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to the delivery and answering of 4 ( 2024:HHC:12898 ) interrogatories, the admissions of documents and facts, and the discovery, inspection, production, impounding and return of documents or other material objects producible as evidence.
9. The court in seisin of the matter in the case at hand,on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, has arrived at the finding that the present respondent has not omitted to answer, nor has it answered insufficiently any of the said questions. On hearing the counsel appearing for both the parties and going through the questions and the answers I do not find anything palpable from the face of the answers to justify a comment that the relevant questions have not been sufficiently answered or have been omitted to be answered. That being so, this Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not interfere with the said finding so long something self-evident or palpable is not shown from the very answers to the questions justifying interference on the grounds mentioned under Order 11, Rule 11 C.P.C.
10. At this stage, it is deemed expedient to advert to Order 11, Rule 21 CPC which provides as under:-
"21. Non-compliance with order for discovery.-(1) Where any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery or inspection of documents, he shall, if a plaintiff, be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution, and, if a defendant, to have his defence, if any, struck out, and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended, and the party interrogating or seeking discovery or inspection may apply to the Court for an order to that effect and an order may be 5 ( 2024:HHC:12898 ) made on such application accordingly, after notice to the parties and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) Where an order is made under sub-rule (1) dismissing any suit, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action."
11. Stringent provisions of Order XI, Rule 21 should be applied only in extreme cases, where there is contumacy on the part of the defendant or a wilful attempt to disregard the order of the Court which may cause substantial or serious prejudice to the opposite party. In this respect, it would be pertinent to place reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babbar Sewing Machine Company v. Trilok Nath Mahajan 1978 (4 ) SCC
188. The relevant extract whereof is being reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
"14. Even assuming that in certain circumstances the provisions of Order XI, Rule 21 must be strictly enforced, it does not follow that a suit can be lightly thrown out or a defence struck out, without adequate reasons. The test laid down is whether the default is wilful. In the case of a plaintiff, it entails in the dismissal of the suit and, therefore, an order for dismissal ought not be made under Order XI, Rule 21, unless the court is satisfied that the plaintiff was willfully withholding information by refusing to answer interrogatories or by withholding the documents which he sought to discover. In such an event, the plaintiff must take the consequence of having his claim dismissed due to his default, i.e. by suppression of information which he was bound to give : Denvillier v. Myers. In the case of the defendant, he is visited with 6 ( 2024:HHC:12898 ) the penalty that his defence is liable to be struck out and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended the suit. The power for dismissal of a suit or striking out of the defence under Order XI, Rule 21, should be exercised only where the defaulting party fails to attend the hearing or is guilty of prolonged or inordinate and inexcusable delay which may cause substantial or serious prejudice to the opposite party.
15. It is well settled that the stringent provisions of Order XI, Rule 21 should be applied only in extreme cases, where there is contumacy on the part of the defendant or a wilful attempt to disregard the willfully withholding information by refusing to answer interrogatories or by withholding the documents which he sought to discover.
12. In view of the aforesaid, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 13.01.2022, passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No.III, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Eviction Petition No.15/2 of 2017/19 and no case has been made out for invoking the provisions of Order 11 Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the present petition stands dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.
13. The parties, through their counsels, are directed to appear before the trial Court, on 12.12.2024.
( Bipin Chander Negi)
December 2nd, 2024 (KS) Judge