Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India & Ors vs Jatinder Kumar Khurana & Ors on 8 July, 2011
Civil Revision No. 6451 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 6451 of 2011
Date of Decision: 8.7.2011
***
Union of India & Ors. .. Petitioners
Vs.
Jatinder Kumar Khurana & Ors. .. Respondents
with Civil Revision No. 6466 of 2010
***
Union of India & Ors. .. Petitioners
Vs.
Jatinder Kumar Khurana & Ors. .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR
Present:- Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Binderjeet Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Daman Dhir, Advocate and
Mr. R.N. Raina, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 5.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The petitioners are being sued by the respondents in the suit for permanent injunction for restraining the former from evicting/ taking possession of the house bearing MC No. 5389-A/1 known as Kesar Niwas, situated in Telianwala Mohalla Bathinda and further from demolishing any portion thereof, on the basis of notice dated 15.6.2009. In the said suit, the claim raised by the plaintiffs is that they are owners and in possession of the aforesaid house and the defendants i.e. Union of India and others, under the garb of aforesaid notice dated 15.6.2009 wants to evict them from the same on the false ground that they have encroached upon the land declared as protected monument. Therefore, they be granted permanent injunction restraining the Union of India and others from forcibly dispossessing them Civil Revision No. 6451 of 2011 2 or from demolishing any portion thereof.
The stand taken by the petitioners-defendants is that the area of Bathinda Fort was declared as protected monument of National Importance vide notification dated 28.11.1951 and it was found that the plaintiffs and number of other persons illegally encroached upon the said property and hence, notices were issued to them to remove the encroachment. According to them the total area of the existing house in possession of the plaintiffs is 204.44 sq. yards out of which they have wrongly and without authority have encroached upon 84 sq. yards area of the protected monument.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the issues and called the parties to lead their evidence, during the course of which the plaintiffs filed two separate applications namely, under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC seeking permission to deliver interrogatories for reply to defendants No.1 to 3 i.e. Union of India and Archaeological Survey of India, Chandigarh Circle as well as Bathinda Fort, Bathinda and other one under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing of following additional issue:-
"Whether the plaintiffs have encroached over the property of Union of India i.e. land of Bathinda Fort, as alleged?OPD"
Though the petitioners filed the replies to the said applications and resisted the prayer, but the learned trial Court vide separate orders dated 4.9.2010 allowed both the applications, which has necessitated the petitioners to file the aforesaid revision petitions. Civil Revision No.6451 of 2010 is in respect of allowing of application for delivery of interrogatories while the order of framing of additional issue has been questioned by way of Civil Revision No.6466 of 2010 and both the revisions are being disposed of by this common order passed in CR No. 6451 of 2010.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the plaintiffs formulated an irrelevant set of interrogatories which have no concern with the controversy involved in the case and are filed at a belated stage.
In the case of P.Balan Vs. Central Bank of India, Calicut Civil Revision No. 6451 of 2011 3 2000(1) Civil Court Cases, 305,it has been held by Kerala High Court as follows:-
"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 or for destroying the case of the adversary. The answering of the interrogatories might save expenses and shorten the litigation by enabling a party to obtain from the other side information as to material facts regarding the questions in dispute or issues raised or to obtain admission of facts which the plaintiff has to prove on any issue. 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. The power is not meant to be confined within narrow limits. 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. Interrogatories have to be confined to the facts which are relevant to the matters in question in the suit. A plaint or a written statement may not sufficiently disclose the nature of parties to the case, and to make good the deficiency, either party can serve interrogatories in writing which, when answered, would enable the Court to decide the suit without probing into the questions elaborately in the light of oral and documentary evidence. The Courts have to approach the question in a broad perspective aimed at seeing whether the grant thereof will enable fair trial and would save the cost of Civil Revision No. 6451 of 2011 4 litigation to the parties. Of course, the possible objections specifically mentioned in R. 6 of O. 11, C. P. C. also have to be considered. The interrogatories have to bear a reasonably close connection with the matters in question. A party is entitled to administer interrogatories to his opponents to obtain admission from him with the object of facilitating proof of his case as also to save the costs which may otherwise be incurred in adducing evidence to prove the necessary facts."
The perusal of the paper-book reveals that there is no dispute as to the possession of the plaintiffs over the property in dispute. Both the parties are staking claim thereupon. According to the plaintiffs they are owners and in possession of the suit property while according to the defendants some portion of the protected area has been encroached upon by the plaintiffs. The whole controversy involved in the suit revolves around the area which the defendants claim to be protected monument while according to the plaintiff it is not forming part of the same and is their ownership. The interrogatories sought to be delivered and answered by the petitioners have been reproduced in the impugned order and a perusal thereof clearly reveals that the same are directly and substantially relate to the controversy involved in the suit. The impugned order, delivering the interrogatories for reply by the petitioners, has been passed keeping in view the object and legal scope of the provisions.
Coming to the question of framing of additional issue, which, as per learned counsel for the petitioners, was uncalled for in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the petitioners, by framing of aforesaid additional issue, the burden of proving the title of the suit property has been shifted upon the defendants, whereas the plaintiffs have to stand on their own legs to prove their plea of being owners and in possession of the suit property and that there is no encroachment made by them on the protected monument.
The provisions of Order XIV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Civil Revision No. 6451 of 2011 5 Procedure reveals that there is no bar for the Court to frame additional issue or to amend the same, before passing of the decree, which may be necessary for determination of controversy between the parties. Defendants are disputing the ownership of the plaintiffs. According to them the total area of existing house under the possession of plaintiffs is 204.44 sq. yards, out of which they have made encroachments upon 84 sq. yards area of the protected monument. In order to establish their this plea, an issue in this regard is required to be framed so as to enable the parties to lead the evidence which is germane to the issue. This necessitated the Court below to frame the additional issue, as reproduced above, in the light of provisions contained in Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. The revision petitions, being without any merit, are dismissed. A copy of this order be placed in the connected petition.
(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 08, 2011 Jiten