Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

SUBMISSIONS:-
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court passed an order in an interlocutory application filed by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, directing the 2nd respondent to answer the interrogatories. The said application was allowed. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned periodically for answering the interrogatories. According to the learned counsel, the 2nd respondent even filed an application for extension of time to answer the interrogatories. Even thereafter, the 2nd respondent failed to comply with the order. It was only under the said circumstances, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.230 of 2015 invoking Order 11 Rule 21(1) of CPC. According to the learned counsel, in view of the nature of the application made under Order 11 Rule 21(1) CPC, the learned District Judge, was not correct in posting the said application along with the main suit. The learned counsel, therefore, wanted a direction to be issued to the learned District Judge to dispose of the application in I.A.No.230 of 2015 at the first instance.
4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the prayer in the application in I.A.No.142 of 2014 was only to deliver the interrogatories. According to the learned counsel, there was no direction to answer the interrogatories, as contended by the petitioner. It was his further contention that there are two stages in sofar as delivery of interrogatories are concerned. The second stage would arise only by initiating separate application under Order 11 Rule 11 CPC. Since there was no such application, the petitioner was not correct in contending that the 2nd respondent failed to answer to the interrogatories and as such the defence should be struck off.
DISCUSSION:-
5. The documents available on record indicate that the petitioner filed the application in I.A.No.142 of 2015 invoking Order 11 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. Even though the prayer was only to direct the 2nd respondent to deliver the interrogatories mentioned in the list, the fact remains that the trial Court passed an order allowing the application on 24 August 2015. The notes papers further indicate that the matter was adjourned periodically with an endorsement that it was adjourned for answering the interrogatories.
6. The petitioner filed the subsequent application in I.A.No.230 of 2015 in I.A.No.142 of 2015, alleging that inspite of a specific order issued by the Court to direct the 2nd respondent to answer the interrogatories, it was not answered and as such she is entitled to the benefit of order 11 Rule 21 CPC.
7. Since the application was one under Order 11 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the trial Court was expected to consider as to whether the 2nd respondent answered the interrogatories pursuant to the order dated 24 August 2015. Since the 2nd respondent failed to answer the interrogatories, pursuant to the order dated 24 August 2015, the petitioner filed the application in I.A.No.230 of 2015. The learned trial Judge was expected to consider the said application and dispose of the same, on merits, before taking up the suit for disposal on merits. In case, the trial Court was of the view that there was a direction to the 2nd respondent to answer the interrogatories and there was a deliberate omission to answer, which would enable the petitioner in the application to invoke Order 11 Rule 21 of CPC, necessarily the consequences would follow. Making this observation, only for the purpose of indicating that the trial Court ought to have disposed of the application in I.A.No.230 of 2015 one way or the other before proceeding further. There is no question of posting the application in I.A.No.230 of 2015 along with the suit for trial, in view of the nature of the prayer made in the said application. I am, therefore of the view, that the matter requires consideration by the learned District Judge.