Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: answer interrogatories in Keshar Devi Baid vs Sh. Ravinder Kumar on 4 March, 2014Matching Fragments
04.03.2014
1. This order of mine will dispose of an application U/o 11 rule 11 r/w/s 151 CPC filed by the defendant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession, damages and mesne profits against the defendant.
3. Whereas, the defendant has filed the application under consideration U/o 11 rule 11 r/w/s 151 CPC, on the averments that defendant / applicant has filed an application u/o 11 rule 1,12&14 r/w/s 151 CPC, which was allowed by this court vide order dated 25.11.2010, for directing to the plaintiff to answer the interrogatories No.1,2,4,5,6&9 of the list of interrogatories on or before 16.12.2010 and since the plaintiff has failed to file the affidavit in respect of the interrogatories in Keshar Devi Baid v. Sh. Ravinder Kumar 04.03.2014 compliance of the order dated 25.11.2010, so, the defendant had already filed an application u/o 11 rule 11 CPC on dated 13.01.2011 for dismissal of the suit for non compliance of the order dated 25.11.2010 and the notice of the said application was issued to the plaintiff. It is further averred that plaintiff has filed an affidavit and copies of some documents in respect to the interrogatories in compliance of the order dated 25.11.2010 passed by this court and the copies thereof were delivered to the counsel for the defendant by post and after going through the affidavit of the plaintiff dated 15.01.2011, it is clear that plaintiff has omitted to answer the interrogatories no.4&5 correctly and sufficiently. It is further averred that plaintiff has stated in her affidavit that her husband Sh. Sampat Baid had purchased the suit property from Smt. Veena @ Veena Tyagi and further stated that other documents of alleged sale were executed in favour of Sh. Sampat Baid apart from GPA dated 07.08.1986 and no such documents which were allegedly executed by Smt. Veena @ Veena Tyagi in favour of Sh. Sampat Baid, have been supplied to the counsel for the defendant nor the same have been filed in this court and plaintiff has not stated in answer to interrogatories no.4 that there are no other documents except GPA dated 07.08.1986 in favour of Sh. Sampat Baid, so, the answer to Keshar Devi Baid v. Sh. Ravinder Kumar 04.03.2014 the same interrogatory is not proper and sufficient. It is further averred that similarly, in respect to the answer of the interrogatory no.5, the plaintiff in para no.4 of her affidavit dated 15.01.2011 has stated that in fact consideration was paid by Sh. Sampat Baid to Veena wife of Sh. Vidya Bhushan and the said fact has been mentioned in the alleged agreement to sell and the plaintiff has not given the date thereof and the said document was neither filed with the affidavit nor the same was supplied to the counsel for the defendant, so, the answer to the same interrogatory is not proper and sufficient. It is further averred that affidavit of the plaintiff in respect of answer of the interrogatories served by this court insufficient as the plaintiff has omitted to answer the interrogatories no. 4&5 and the same affidavit is not in compliance of the order dated 25.11.2010 and there is delay in compliance of the order dated 25.11.2010 and plaintiff has not filed any application for seeking condonation delay and prayed for directing to the plaintiff to answer the interrogatories no.4&5 by way of filing of an affidavit in terms of rule 8 of order 11 CPC and on non filing of the same, the suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed.
4. On the other hand, the plaintiff has filed reply to the said application and contested the same on the grounds inter alia that contents of the application are mischievous, baseless Keshar Devi Baid v. Sh. Ravinder Kumar 04.03.2014 and frivolous averment of the applicant that the plaintiff has omitted to answer the interrogatories no.4&5 or that the same is not answered correctly and sufficiently. It is denied that answer to the interrogatory no.5 is not proper and stated that the same has been properly and adequately replied. It is denied that affidavit dated 15.01.2011 filed by the plaintiff is not in compliance of the order of the court and in order to delay the proceedings and after denying other averments, she has sought rejection of the application under consideration.
9. Perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 25.11.2010 the predecessor of this court had directed to the plaintiff to give the replies to the interrogatories, but, the plaintiff had filed the affidavit and the same interrogatories were not properly replied by the plaintiff and this court had called to the plaintiff, who was examined in the court on dated 16.07.2013 and she has given the statement as under : 16.07.13 Statement of Smt. Keshar Devi Baid, aged about 66 years W/o Sh. Sampat Baid, R/o A156, Vivek Vihar PhaseII, Delhi110095 on SA I am plaintiff in the present case. I am 8th class passed. In compliance of the order dated 25.11.2010 passed on an application U/o 11 rule 1,12&14 of CPC. I had filed the affidavit dated 15.01.2011 in answer to the interrogatories as called for vide Keshar Devi Baid v. Sh. Ravinder Kumar 04.03.2014 order dated 25.11.2010. My affidavit is Ex.P1 wherein I have given the details of all the documents which are in my possession pertaining to the suit property and all the said documents have been filed by me on the record. The certified copy of the sale deed dated 02.01.1990 which was filed with the plaint is Ex.P2. Photocopy of agreement for sale dated 07.08.1986 is mark X. Photocopy of receipt dated 07.08.1986 is mark X1. Photocopy of WILL dated 07.08.1986 is mark X2. Photocopy of a GPA dated 07.08.1986 executed by Smt. Veena in favour of Sampat Baid is mark X3. I have no other document pertaining to the title of suit property in my possession and I undertake that I would not file any other document in the present case pertaining to the title of the suit property and I will rely upon the documents which are already filed by me on the record. I do not have any other document pertaining to the suit property executed in favour of my husband Sampat Baid and no other document exists except the aforesaid GPA executed by Smt. Veena in favour of my husband i.e. mark X3.