Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree dated 28.8.1981 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, this first appeal has been preferred by the appellant-defendant No. 1.

3. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant- defendant No. 1 has raised the following contentions:

(1) That the learned lower court has wrongly placed reliance on the answers given by the defendant No. 7- appellant to the interrogatories put by the plaintiff -respondent. The case of the defendant No. 1 appellant in this respect is two fold;

4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff respondent supported the impugned judgment and decree of the learned lower court.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.

6. To appreciate the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant No. 1 in this appeal, it would be worthwhile to reproduce Rule 22 of Order 11 CPC:

R. 12-Using answers to interrogatories at trial-Any party may, at the trial of a suit, use in evidence any one or more of the answers or any part of an answer of the opposite party to interrogatories without putting in the others or the whole of such answer:
Provided always that in such case the Court may look at the whole of the answers, and if it shall be of opinion that any others of them are so connected with those put in that the last mentioned answers ought not to be used without them, it may direct them to be put in.

7. In Gosto Behary Pal v. Johur Lall Pal (1879) I.L.R. 4 Cal. 836 (837) it was held that answers to interrogatories are only affidavits and are not by themselves evidence.

8. In Waghji Thackersey and Ors. v. Khatao Rowji and Anr. (1886) I.L.R. 10 Bombay 167 (171), it was held that the party wishing to use the answers to interrogatories must put them in evidence in the ordinary way.

9. Keeping in mind the above rulings and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that the approach of the learned lower court is erroneous one and the learned lower court has wrongly placed reliance on the answers to the interrogatories given by the appellant-defendant No. 1 as they are not by themselves evidence and they have not been put in evidence. Apart from them, the answer to the interrogatories, which have been quoted above, does not contain any admission which benefits the case of the plaintiff respondent. The defendant No. 1 appellant has given answers to the interrogatories in a very clear manner stating that the verification was based only on the statement of one Chuni Lal for Ramanand Babuji and no physical verification was done by the Authorities at Merrut, So, the facts were not verified. From this answer, it becomes clear that there is no admission of the fact that the goods in question were received at Merrut. Thus, the learned lower court has committed material illegality and irregularity in placing reliance on the answers given by the defendant No. l- appellant to the interrogatories put by the plaintiff-respondent, as they are not by themselves evidence and they have not been put in evidence.