Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Learned Counsel further submitted that the non-compliance of Order XI Rule 1 CPC will lead to some consequences, as mentioned in Order XI Rule 21 CPC, which reads as follows:

21. Non-compliance with order for discovery.- (1) Where any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery or inspection of documents, he shall, if a plaintiff, be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution, and, if a defendant, to have his defence, if any, struck out, and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended, and the party interrogating or seeking discovery or inspection may apply to the Court for an order to that effect, and an order may be made on such application accordingly, after notice to the parties and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

(2) Where an order is made under Sub-rule (1) dismissing any suit, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

5. Learned Counsel relied upon a judgment of the Patna High Court in Thakur Prasad v. Md. Sohayal AIR 1977 Pat. 233, wherein Order XI Rule 1 CPC was considered and the Court observed as follows:

The main object of interrogatories is to save expenses and time by enabling a party to obtain from the opponent information as to facts material to the question in dispute between them and to obtain admissions of any facts which he has to prove on any issue which is raised between them. An admission of the adversary will serve to maintain the case of the party administering the interrogatory or the answer might be destructive of his own. A party therefore who has not chosen to appear in the case and contest the plaintiff's suit cannot be asked either to discover any document or to answer any question on interrogatories.

6. In the case covered by the above decision, the plaintiff filed an application requesting to direct the defendant to answer interrogatories, but the learned Additional Munsif refused to serve the interrogatories upon the defendant No. 4, who had not entered appearance in the suit at all. In the said order, the Additional Munsif assigned a ground that it would unnecessarily delay the disposal of the title suit, which is of the year 1967. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant preferred the revision petition before the High Court of Patna and the High Court made the above observation. From the above decision, it was clear that a party, who has not chosen to appear in the case and contest the plaintiff's suit, cannot be asked either to discover any document or to answer any question on interrogatories.

10. The first defendant opposed the application by contending that the application is not maintainable and the second defendant cannot be treated as opponent to the plaintiff to serve interrogatories upon her. Therefore, he requested to dismiss the application. The learned Junior Civil Judge while observing that the second defendant remained ex parte and as the sale transaction with regard to the suit property took place between the plaintiff and the second defendant and since the first defendant refused to register the land in pursuance of Ex. A.1, which bears the signature of the second defendant, and as the land is in possession of the second defendant, it requires to serve interrogatories to get answers from the second defendant to ascertain the real facts and the decision of the Patna High Court in Thakur Prasad's case (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the application was allowed directing to serve the interrogatories on the second defendant.