Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manohar Lal vs Shri Govind on 3 February, 2010
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
SBSWP NO.8628/2008 - MANOHAR LAL V/S L.Rs. OF GOVIND :JUDGMENT DTD.3.2.2010
1/9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8628/2008
Manohar Lal
Versus
LRs. of Govind
PRESENT
HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr.Manish Shishodia, }
Mr.Rajesh Parihar }for the petitioner
None present for the respondents.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 3rd February, 2010.
JUDGMENT
1. None present for the respondents despite service.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner - plaintiff has challenged the order dtd.20.8.2008, whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application under Order 11 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. filed by petitioner - plaintiff seeking the defendants to be served with certain interrogatories filed with the said application.
SBSWP NO.8628/2008 - MANOHAR LAL V/S L.Rs. OF GOVIND :JUDGMENT DTD.3.2.2010 2/9
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner - plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court by the impugned order dtd.20.8.2008 has virtually tried to answer these questions in the impugned order on behalf of the defendants without even calling upon the defendants to answer the said interrogatories. He submitted, relying upon the various decisions, like Ramlal Sao V/s Tansingh Lal Singh - AIR 1952 Nagpur 135, Jamaitri Bishansarup V/s Rai Bahadur Moti Lal
- AIR 1960 Calcultta 536, Ganga Devi V/s Krushana Prasad Sharma - AIR 1967 Orissa 19, Thakur Prasad V/s Md. Sahayal - AIR 1977 Patna 233, Janki Ballar Patnaik V/s Benvett Coleman & Co. Ltd. - AIR 1989 Orissa 216, M/s Hira Lal Dhanpat Rai V/s Laxmi Chand - RLW 1993 (1) 469, P. Balan V/s Central Bank of India - AIR 2000 Kerla 24, Smt. Sharda Dhir V/s Ashok Kumar Makhija and ors. and Raj Narayan V/s Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi and ors. - AIR 1972 (SC) 1302 that service of such interrogatories would have cut down the litigation as there was earlier a suit for partition between the parties in respect of said property and the decree had been passed in the said suit and the defendant had filed first appeal in this Court, namely, first appeal No.931/1997 which is pending in this Court. He submitted that the very object of Order 11 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. is to elicit certain information from the defendant which could cut down the controversy and the suit filed for possession and mesne profit by the plaintiff who is bonafide purchaser of the property in question could be cut short.
SBSWP NO.8628/2008 - MANOHAR LAL V/S L.Rs. OF GOVIND :JUDGMENT DTD.3.2.2010 3/9
4. No body appeared on behalf of the respondents - defendants despite service on the legal representatives of Govind Ram. In absence of respondents, therefore, the matter was heard exparte.
5. In the case of Raj Narain V/s Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi reported in AIR 1972 (SC) 3702, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"Questions that may be relevant during cross- examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. The only questions that are relevant as interrogatories are those relating to "any matters in question." The interrogatories served must have reasonably close connection with "matters in question."
5. In the case of M/s Hira lal Dhanpat Rai V/s Laxmichand reported in 1993(1) RLW 469, this Hon'ble Court has held as under:
"So long as the interrogatories sought to be served, are relating to and relevant to matters in question having reasonable close connection, the same may be permitted SBSWP NO.8628/2008 - MANOHAR LAL V/S L.Rs. OF GOVIND :JUDGMENT DTD.3.2.2010 4/9 and the mere fact that those facts can be proved by other evidence is no ground for refusing the permission to serve interrogatories. In this connection reference may be made to Jamaitrai Bishansarup V/s Rai Bahadur Motil Chamaria (AIR 1960 Calcutta 536), wherein it has been observed as under:-
"Interrogatories cannot be disallowed merely on the ground that the party interrogating has other means of proving the facts in question since one legitimate purpose of interrogatories is to obtain admission."
6. In the case of P. Balan V/s Central Bank of India, Calicut reported in AIR 2000 Kerala 24, the Kerala High Court has observed as under:
"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 SBSWP NO.8628/2008 - MANOHAR LAL V/S L.Rs. OF GOVIND :JUDGMENT DTD.3.2.2010 5/9 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 SBSWP NO.8628/2008 - MANOHAR LAL V/S L.Rs. OF GOVIND :JUDGMENT DTD.3.2.2010 6/9 litigation to th 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 admissino 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.
Thus, where the order rejecting admissibility of interrogatories was passed without taking into view the above stated object and without assigning reasons, matter was remitted back to the Court for taking fresh decision through a speaking order."
7. In the case of Ganga Devi V/s Krushna Prasad Sharma reported in AIR 1967 Orissa 19, the Hon'ble Orissa High Court has observed as under:
"In respect of matter arising under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, there is no provision in Civil P.C. Expressly prohibiting that the remedy, prescribed in SBSWP NO.8628/2008 - MANOHAR LAL V/S L.Rs. OF GOVIND :JUDGMENT DTD.3.2.2010 7/9 Order 11 would not be available to interlocutory proceedings.
(Para 7).
It is well settled that in the absence of an express prohibition, nothing in the Cose shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice. The Court can, therefore, under Section 151 permit interrogatories being served to shorten the prolonged course of interlocutory proceedings. AIR 1962 SC 527. Reld. on."
8. In the case of Ramlalsao V/s Tansingh Lalsingh reported in AIR 1952 Nagpur 135, the Maharashtra High Court has observed as under:
"The right of a party to deliver interrogatories to his opponent and get answers from him is a valuable one in conducting him cause and he should not lightly be deprived of it. It must be remembered that discovery of facts and documents often tends to shorten litigation and save expenses. An order therefore, refusing leave to deliver interrogatories and for discovery of documents on the ground that the interrogatories and the documents SBSWP NO.8628/2008 - MANOHAR LAL V/S L.Rs. OF GOVIND :JUDGMENT DTD.3.2.2010 8/9 were not material before the oral evidence was recorded is erroneous."
9. The legal position in view of the aforesaid judgments seems to be very clear and it is observed that the learned trial Court itself could not have taken upon itself the job of answering the questions raised by the present petitioner for the defendants by way of application under Order 11 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. in the form of interrogatories. Since the defendants had also filed written statement before the learned trial Court, it was expected of them to respond to said interrogatories by replying to the questions and thereafter it would have been for the Court to draw inference and pass orders upon them.
10. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned court below appears to be wrong and unduly supporting the defendants without seeking their response to the interrogatories filed by the plaintiff - petitioner.
11. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the order dtd.28.8.2008 is set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff - petitioner under Order 11 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. stands allowed. The learned trial Court shall proceed accordingly. No order as to costs. A SBSWP NO.8628/2008 - MANOHAR LAL V/S L.Rs. OF GOVIND :JUDGMENT DTD.3.2.2010 9/9 copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court as well as the opposite party.
(Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.53.
Ss/-