Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1.The present revision application has been filed against the order dated 17-8-1991 passed by the learned Munsif 1st Court, Patna, in Title Eviction Suit No. 58/88. By this order the trial Court has refused the prayer of the defendant-petitioner to order the plaintiff-opposite party requiring him to answer certain interrogatories.

2. The present eviction Suit has been filed by the plaintiff on the ground of personal necessity under the provisions of Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. To defeat the plaintiff's claim, the defendant-Petitioner appears to have taken one of the pleas that the plaintiff is possessed of one more house, which has been given to him by his maternal grand-father under a will, this house is the subject-matter of Probate Case No. 130 of 1988, which is still pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Patna. The interrogatories relate to this house and through interrogatories the defendant wants answer from the plaintiff with regard to the area of the land over which the house has been constructed and the number of the rooms in the house.

Order 11, Rule 6, CPC reads as under:

Any objection to answering any interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit, or that the matters inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage, or on the ground of privilege, or any other ground, may be taken in the affidavit in answer.
Therefore, the prayer for answering of the interrogatories can be refused, inter alia.
(i) if it is shown that the prayer has not been made bona fide for the purpose of the suit; and
(ii) the matters enquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage.

8. In the present case, the interrogatories sought to be answered, on the face of the record, are wholly immaterial at the stage at which the answer was being sought. It is so because the questions by the interrogatories have already been answered by the plaintiff in the cross-examination. Further, I also agree with the learned Munsif that the defendant is trying to delay the suit, which is otherwise required to be disposed of expeditiously, on one pretext or the other, which merely demonstrates mala fide.

10. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle, I am of the considered opinion that the order refusing the prayer for answering the interrogatories under Order II, Rule 11, CPC does not amount to 'case-decided' and, therefore, no revision application is maintainable against such orders under Section 115, CPC. There is unanimity on this aspect as it appears from the reported cases cited at the Bar. To support, I may refer to AIR 1972 Mysore, 254 : .

11. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, 'dismissed. I award a cost of Rs. 500 (Five hundred), which will be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff within a month from today.