Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This reply was supported by an affidavit signed by Mr. Sethi and attested by Mr. Lachhman Das, Senior Subordinate Judge, Mahasu. On the same day (9-7-1953), the plaintiff put in a petition under Order 11, Rule 21, praying that the defence of defendants 1 and 2 be struck off, since they had failed to answer the interrogatories and give discovery of documents despite orders of the Court and grant of many adjournments. On 20-9-1953, Mr. L. N. Sethi, Government Advocate, filed a reply to the interrogatories.

(7) On these premises, Mr. Chandu Lal urged that the respondents 1 and 2 have been guilty of refusing to answer interrogatories, and giving discovery of documents and, therefore, their defence should be struck off under Order 11, Rule 21. He contended that the learned District Judge was not justified in thinking that there was no wilful default on the part of the defendants concerned.

He submitted that the circumstances disclosed by the record are a clear pointer to the effect that there has been wilful default on the part of defendants 1 and 2 and no further indulgence should have been shown to them. I was, therefore, requested to pass an order, striking off the defence of respondents 1 and 2, under Order 11, Rule 21.