Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Considering the dismissal of the suit by the learned Trial Judge, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said Special Leave Petition without entering into the merit of the said Special Leave Petition.

Thus, the order which was passed by this Hon'ble Court in revision attained its finality.

Fact remains that despite repeated adjournments were granted to the Plaintiff/Appellant to answer the interrogatories which were allowed by the learned Trial Court with some modifications by this Hon'ble Court in its revisional jurisdiction, the Plaintiff/Appellant did not answer those interrogatories. This prompted the defendant no. 1 to invite the learned Trial Court by filing an application Order 11 Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Code to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff for non-compliance of the order of the Court.

Though Mr. Nilay Sengupta, learned advocate, appearing for the respondent no. 1 supports the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court by submitting that withholding of giving answer to those interrogatories was willful on the part of the plaintiff/appellant as he disclosed before the learned Trial Court that he was not bound to give answer to those interrogatories, but we do not find any such reflection in the order impugned.

The context in which such steps for dismissal of the suit can be taken by the court under Order 11 Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Code was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Babbar Sewing Machine Company -vs- Tirlok Nath Mahajan, reported in AIR 1978 S.C. 1436 wherein it was held as follows :

On reading the impugned order, we are of the view that this test has not been applied by the learned Trial Judge while dismissing the probate suit under Order 11 Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, at the same time we find that the interrogatories have not been answered by the plaintiff/petitioner. We have examined the interrogatories, which he was called upon to answer by this Hon'ble Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

In our view, the interrogatories which the Plaintiff was directed to answer, excepting interrogatory mentioned in Sl. No. 12, are very relevant so far as the administration of the estate of the deceased by the executor during the pendency of the probate proceeding. As such, the Plaintiff/Appellant being the executor cannot avoid giving reply to those interrogatories.

Considering such submission of Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel, we dispose of this appeal by setting aside the order impugned with a further rider that the plaintiff/appellant will give answer to those interrogatories which were allowed by this Hon'ble Court while disposing of the civil revision application as aforesaid, excepting the interrogatory as mentioned in Sl. No. 12, positively within 24th January 2017, without fail.

It is made clear that the time limit which is fixed for giving answer to the interrogatories by the plaintiff will be regarded as peremptorily fixed by this Court and under no circumstances the time limit will be further extended by the Court.