( 1 ) THIS is plaintiff s chamber appeal by which an order of the Joint Registrar dated 28th August, 2001 passed on IA 4495/98 has been challenged- IA 4495/98 was filed by the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 1 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 for the service of Interrogatories for examination of the defendant No. 1 for discovery of facts on oath.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to this application succinctly stated are as follows. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendants on the allegation that defendant No. 1 in collusion with other defendants entered into an agreement of sale of property no. 706, Sector 15~a, Faridabad for a sale consideration of Rs. 19,40,000/ -. The defendant No. 1 executed a receipt-cum-Agreement to Sell dated 10th January, 1997 on receipt of a sum of Rs. 1 lac in advance. It was recited in the agreement that the plot/property was free from all encumbrances and that the documents of title in original would be delivered to the plaintiff at the time of the payment of the balance sale consideration and the execution of the sale deed. Another sum of Rs. 1 lac was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 as -desired by him on 10th January, 1997 against a separate receipt. On the request of the defendant No. l another sum of rs. 50,000/- was also paid to him, in all making the total advance payment to the defendant No. l of rs. 2,50,000/~. Despite repeated demands the defendant no. 1 failed to produce the original title document for the inspection of the plaintiff and execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance amount of the sale consideration. The plaintiff asked the defendant No. l to be present in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 10. 3. 1997 for the execution and registration of the Sale deed subject to production and verification of the original document which included the Original Title deeds and other documents relating to the property, no due certificate and clearance certificate from the income Tax Department, completion certificate of two and a half storeyed house and the Lease Deed executed in favour of the tenant in occupation of the property. The defendant No. 1 failed to appear till 5 P. M. He then came but without the original title deed of the property. He, however, offered to return the money received in advance after deducting Rs. 25,000/- allegedly incurred as expenses by him. The plaintiff declined this offer. Thereafter, the plaintiff received a letter dated l6th March, 1997 from the defendant No. l falsely alleging that he was present in the office of the Sub-Registrar and that the plaintiff had committed the breach of agreement. However, the defendant No. 1 admitted that he did not have all the original document with him which were the essence of the agreement since there was no mention thereof in the letter. Later on the defendant No. l assured to refund the money taken by him and also to compensate her for the harassment caused to her. But all in vain. Subsequent enquiry made by the plaintiff revealed that the property in question was mortgaged by the defendant No. 1 with his employer bank and at the time of execution of the agreement of sale he had no right to sell the property. The defendant No. 1 had misrepresented about his title and right to sell the property or its being free from all encumbrances. The defendant No. 1 in fact had utilised the money taken as advance from the plaintiff for making payment of the loan. He has played fraud upon the plaintiff. After making further enquiry the plaintiff lodged a complaint dated 16th May, 1997 and September, 1997 against the defendant No. 1 at police station, Faridabad. Other defendants colluded with the defendant No. 1 were equally liable for this fraudulent transaction. The plaintiff had originally claimed the relief of recovery of damages of Rs. 8,15,6307- with interest @ 24% per annum in future; a decree of permanent injunction for restraining defendant No. 2 from handing over the original