Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The High Court had framed 4 substantial questions of law at the time of admission of the appeal and 2 additional substantial questions at a later stage but did not answer either of them nor recorded any finding that none of them was, in fact, a substantial question of law, rather the appeal has been decided placing reliance on the Will, which was liable to be ignored altogether and making reference to the record of the Cantonment Board. In case, the Union of India did not produce the revenue record before the trial Court, the first appellate Court has wrongly drawn adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, Shri Asok Ganguly and Shri C.L. Pandey, learned Senior counsel with Shri Vibhor Garg, Advocate vehemently opposed the appeal contending that concurrent findings recorded by the first and second appellate Court are not liable to be interfered with in discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The registered partition deed of 1819 is the proof of title of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1. In view of the fact that the Second Appeal could be decided on limited issues, the High Court was not bound to answer the substantial questions of law, framed by it. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

15. Order XI CPC contains certain provisions with the object to save expense by obtaining information as to material facts and to obtain admission of any fact which he has to prove on any issue. Therefore, a party has a right to submit interrogatories relating to the same matter in issue. The expression “matter” means a question or issue in dispute in the action and not the thing about which such dispute arises. The object of introducing such provision is to secure all material documents and to put an end to protracted enquiry with respect to document/material in possession of the other party. In such a fact-situation, no adverse inference can be drawn against a party for non-production of a document unless notice is served and procedure is followed. Under Rule 14 of Order XI, the court is competent to direct any party to produce the document asked by the other party which is in his possession or power and relating to any material in question in such suit. Rule 15 Order XI provides for inspection of documents referred to in pleadings or affidavits. Rule 18 thereof, empowers the court to issue order for inspection. Rule 21 thereof provides for very stringent consequences for non-compliance with the order of discovery, as in view of the said provisions in case the party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories or for discovery or inspection of documents, he shall, if he is a plaintiff, be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution and if he is 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. Thus, in view of the above, the suit may be dismissed for non-compliance of the aforesaid orders by the plaintiff and the plaintiff shall also be precluded from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Similarly, defence of the defendant may be struck off for non-compliance of such orders.

There may be a question, which may be a “question of fact”, “question of law”, “mixed question of fact and law” and “substantial question of law.” Question means anything inquired; an issue to be decided. The “question of fact” is whether a particular factual situation exists or not. A question of fact, in the Realm of Jurisprudence, has been explained as under:-

“A question of fact is one capable of being answered by way of demonstration. A question of opinion is one that cannot be so answered. An answer to it is a matter of speculation which cannot be proved by any available evidence to be right or wrong.” (Vide: Salmond, on Jurisprudence, 12th Edn. page 69, cited in Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao v. E.V. alias Balasaheb Vikhe Patil & ors., AIR 1994 SC 678).