Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No.375/2006 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda. Suit is one for setting aside some registered documents which are purported to have been created fraudulently committing criminal breach of trust and cheating. Plaintiff moved Ext.P1 application under Order XI Rule 1 to direct the respondents/defendants to answer certain interrogatories set forth by him. That application was allowed vide Ext.P2 order dated 26.09.2007 by the learned Munsiff. The interrogatories were not answered by the defendants, who, later moved an application for review of Ext.P2 order, but, it was dismissed. Subsequently, taking note that the plaintiff has not moved any application under Order XI Rule 21 the learned Munsiff passed Ext.P3 order dated 31.10.2008 closing Ext.P1 application. Much later two applications were moved in the suit, one by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant, the former purportedly under Order XI Rule 21 of the Code to strike off the defense of the defendant for having not answered the interrogatories as under Ext.P1 application, and, the other application by the defendants for accepting his answers to the interrogatories previously ordered by the court. After hearing both sides the application of the plaintiff was dismissed vide Ext.P4 order and that of the defendant was allowed vide Ext.P5 order condoning the delay in answering the interrogatories. Challenge in the original petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is against Exts.P3, P4 and P5 orders passed by the learned Munsiff.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None of the parties had any notice of Ext.P3 order passed by the court closing Ext.P1 application for non filing of a petition under Order XI Rule 21 of the Code by the plaintiff is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that order and also the subsequent orders Exts.P4 and P5 orders passed by the court below are unsustainable under law and the learned Munsiff has gone wrong in exercising his jurisdiction in passing Exts.P3, P4 and P5 orders. After going through Ext.P1 application moved by the plaintiff with reference to Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P5, I find this is not a fit case which calls for interference with Exts.P3 to P5 orders passed by the learned Munsiff in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction. Even assuming that the interrogatories are not answered by the party who was directed to do so by the court on the application moved by the other party it does not by itself confer on the party who applied for the interrogatories to be answered by the opposite party an indefeasible right to strike off the suit or the defense as the case may be. Order XI Rule 21 empowers the court to do so where there is default on the party to answer the interrogatories does not ipso facto lead to a conclusion that the party who applied for the same on moving such an application can compel the court to do so. It is for the court to look into the diverse facts presented in the case and then decide whether striking off the suit or of the defense, as the case may be, is called for on account of the default of the party in complying with the orders issued to answer the interrogatories. In the given facts of the case having regard to Ext.P3 order passed by the court below much earlier and also that the defendant though belatedly has answered the interrogatories, I find nothing improper on the part of the court below in accepting and receiving the answers filed by him on the basis of Ext.P2 order passed on Ext.P1 application. I make it clear that the learned Munsiff has to decide the lis untrammeled by any of the observations made in Exts.P4 and P5 orders, and dispose it in accordance with law.