Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: answer interrogatories in Ruma Jhuma Bhaumik vs Dev Raj Arora on 13 April, 2015Matching Fragments
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of an application under Order 11 Rules 1 & 2 and Order 11 Rule 14 CPC moved by the plaintiff.
2. It is stated in the application that plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell with the defendant on 21.03.2007 to purchase the property bearing No. NÂ6, Upper Ground Floor, Chittranjan Park, New Delhi - 110019 for a total consideration of Rs. 43 lacs, out of which the defendant received Rs. 5 lacs as earnest money from the plaintiff. In clause 4 of the said agreement to sell, it has been mentioned that the said property is free from all sort of encumbrances like prior sale, mortgages, gifts, disputes, Wills, court injunction, attachments etc. and that if same is proved otherwise, the defendant shall be liable and responsible for all damages suffered by the plaintiff. It is stated that after entering into the said agreement to sell and payment of earnest money of Rs. 5 lacs to the defendant, the plaintiff got suspicious and made efforts to get the title verified. The plaintiff came to know that the said premises was not just encumbered but was also embroiled in litigation with the occupants of above floors in the said property. The plaintiff in her evidence by way of affidavit inter alia stated that she had asked the defendant to provide her copy of the sanction plan but the defendant could not provide her the copy of the sanction plan. Therefore, the plaintiff is seeking directions to the defendant to answer the questions/interrogatories as mentioned in para 5 of the application and has also prayed that defendant may be directed to produce the documents under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC.
12. It is apparent that there is no such pleadings either in the plaint or in the legal notice regarding providing of copy of sanction plan by the defendant or copy of competition certificate by MCD and further about unauthorized construction as sought by the plaintiff by way of present interrogatories at Serial No. 1 to 8. Further these interrogatives are neither the issues in the present case nor relevant and necessary for determination of the issues involved in the present case. Hence, the defendant cannot be asked to answer the interrogatories or produce the documents as prayed.
15. So far the interrogatives at Serial No. 9 to 11, which are in respect of suit filed by one Sh. Jadav Chandra Dey against the defendant, are concerned, first of all, there is no denial by the defendant in the written statement that Sh. Jadav Chandra Dey has filed a suit against him before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which is pending adjudication and there is also status quo order in respect of suit premises. Moreover, filing of the suit by Sh. Jadav Chandra Dey is not germane to the present proceedings as in the present case the plaintiff is required to prove her case and filing of suit by Sh. Jadav Chandra Dey against the defendant before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is not relevant and helpful in adjudication of the issues involved in the present case. Furthermore, since there is no dispute regarding the facts as sought to be answered by the defendant by way of interrogatories at Serial No. 9 to 11, the same cannot be said to be relevant. It has been held in Raj Narain Vs. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi & Ors. AIR 1972 SC 1302 that, "Questions that may be relevant during crossÂexamination 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".