Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Plaintiff filed a petition under Order 11 Rule 1, C.P.C. calling upon the defendants to answer the interrogatories on the ground that the averments in the written statement are vague. The three interrogatories which the plaintiff prayed to be served on the defendants are :--

(i) "What other joint family properties have been left out from the suit as stated by you in para 5 of your written statement and the detailed descriptions?

(ii) Have you sold any land out of the suit properties? Give the name and address of the purchasers, the dates of sales and the properties sold?

(iii) That in para 15 of your written statement you have mentioned that the suit plots Nos. 227, 1708. and 1711 under khata No. 125 has been settled in your name, Please furnish as to when it was settled and by whom?"

Defendants filed their counter to the application under Order 11 Rule 1, C.P.C. Trial court rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiff can know as to which of the properties have been settled with the defendants, which properties have been sold to strangers. Since the onus is on the plaintiff to prove its own case, the defendants should not be called upon to answer the interrogatories.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner assailing the rejection order submits that in the interest of justice the defendants should be called upon to answer the interrogatories. The averments in paras 5, 13 and 15 in written statement are vague in nature. Therefore, to shorten the litigation the interrogatories should be allowed.

5. The learned advocate for the opp. parties on the other hand, submits, if pleadings are vague then plaintiff has remedy under Order 6 Rule 5, C.P.C. A specific provision being there under Civil Procedure Code to call upon the defendants to clarify the pleadings, the plaintiffs application under Order 11 Rules 1 and 4, C.P.C. is not maintainable. Order passed rejecting the application under Order 11 Rule 4, C.P.C. not being in the nature of a case decided is also not revisable under Section 115 of C.P.C. Order 11, Rule 1, C.P.C. is meant for shortening a litigation calling the defendants to admit certain facts. In this case the application of the plaintiff being by way of clarification does not come within the scope of Order 11, Rule 1, C.P.C. and therefore the application had been rightly rejected.

Admittedly the averments in the written statement are vague. Therefore, in order to meet the pleadings in the written statement the plaintiff has called upon the defendants' answer the interrogatories.

Though the plaintiff has taken the objection regarding vagueness of the written statement the defendants have not made any attempt to amend the written statement by supplying particulars. In absence of particulars such pleas taken by the defendants are liable to be rejected on the ground of vagueness. Order 6, Rule 5, C.P.C. provides for calling upon the defendants to supply further particulars. Reading Order 6, Rule 5, C.P.C. and Order 11, Rule 1, C.P.C. in my opinion, there is no prohibition under the Code that in absence of compliance with Order 6, Rule 5, C.P.C. the party to the proceeding cannot resort to the provision of Order 11, Rule 1, C.P.C.