Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Tara Batra - Appellant
Versus
Punam A Kumar & Ors. - Respondents
CM(M) No. 925/2019
Decided On : 10-09-2021
Interrogatories - Civil Procedure Code - Order XI Rule 1, 12, 13 - The court allowed the petitions and set aside the impugned orders dated 10th July, 2017 and 11th February, 2020. The respondents no.1 and 2 are directed to answer the interrogatories and produce the documents sought by filing an affidavit within four weeks from the date of the judgment. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and respondents no.3 and 4 filed a suit for declaration, recovery, and rendition of accounts related to fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) and property left behind by deceased family members. The petitioner sought to administer interrogatories and discovery and production of documents under Order XI Rules 1, 12, and 13 of the CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court dismissed the applications under Order XI Rules 12 and 13, stating that the petitioner was seeking evidence and information amounting to admission of the parties, and that the relief of rendition of accounts had to be proved through evidence. The Court also dismissed the application for leave to administer interrogatories, holding that the relief had to be proved through evidence and not by extracting evidence through interrogatories.
Issues: The issues involved the encashment of FDRs, rendition of accounts, and the legality of changes made to the FDRs. The main issue was whether the defendants wrongly encashed the FDR and whether the plaintiff was entitled to rendition of accounts from the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Trial Court's reasoning for dismissing the applications was not tenable in law. It emphasized that the purpose of providing the procedure of discovery by interrogatories in the CPC is to shorten the litigation and enable a party to obtain an admission from the opponent, which reduces the scope of trial and the cost of litigation for the parties.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the respondents to answer the interrogatories and produce the documents sought within four weeks. The Trial Court was instructed to proceed with the matter accordingly.
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J. - Both these petitions are between the same parties and are based on common questions of fact arising out of the same suit and are therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. CM(M) 925/2019 is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India preferred by the petitioner, who is the plaintiff no.1 in CS(OS) No. 58999/2016, against the dismissal dated 10th July, 2017 of the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking leave to administer interrogatories on respondent no.2 bank (defendant no.2 before the Trial Court).
3. CM(M) 581/2020 is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India preferred by the petitioner, against the impugned order dated 11th February, 2020 whereby the two applications filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order XI Rules 12 and 13 of the CPC seeking discovery on oath and production of documents were dismissed.
4. The plaint from which the present petitions arise was filed by the petitioner and respondents no.3 and 4, being children of the petitioner, for declaration, recovery and rendition of accounts, pleading that (i) the petitioner was the divorced wife of one Sh. Kiranjit Singh Paintal who expired on 4th January, 2001 and respondents no. 3 and 4 are the children of the petitioner and late Sh. Kiranjit Singh Paintal; (ii) Mrs. Veena Paintal was the mother of the deceased husband of the petitioner, who expired on 4th April, 2010; (iii) before her death, late Mrs. Veena Paintal had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of her daughter, respondent no.1 (defendant no.1 before the Trial Court), and handed her over possession of all relevant documents, including fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) in which the petitioner and the respondents no.3 and 4 were nominated as beneficiaries; (iv) late Mrs. Veena Paintal left behind a Will, in terms of which she bequeathed upon the petitioner/respondents no.3 and 4, inter alia, the property bearing no.C-410, Defence Colony and all monies in bank and fixed deposits in which the nomination was made in favour of the petitioner and respondents no. 3 and 4; (v) in respect of one of the fixed deposits made in respondent no.2 bank, where the petitioner had been made the nominee, the name of respondent no.1 was subsequently added as a joint holder by illegally tampering with and overwriting on the said FDR; and, (vi) the prayer in the suit was for recovery of amounts illegally appropriated by the respondent no.1 on account of tampering of the FDR by overwriting the name of the respondent no.1 and for rendition of accounts and directing the respondents no.1 and 2 to disclose details of all FDRs made wherein the petitioner and/or respondents no. 3 and 4 had been named as nominees and the amounts so encashed by respondent no.1.
5. The said suit was contested by respondents no.1 and 2 by filing written statements. The petitioner and respondents no.3 and 4 filed IA No. 6763/2013 under Order XI Rules 12 and 13 of the CPC for discovery and production of documents, stating that the said documents are relevant for proper adjudication of the suit. In respect of respondent no.1, discovery and production of the following documents was sought:
“i. Receipts and other related documentation of the Fixed Deposits made by the Late Mrs. Veena Paintal, wherein the plaintiffs or one of them have/had been named nominees/beneficiaries.”
In respect of respondent no.2, discovery and production of the following documents was sought:
i. The documents, provided to Defendant No. 2, in pursuance of which the changes were made in FDR A/c No. 30123248804, these changes being that Defendant No. 2 was named as joint account holder in this Fixed Deposit Account, and the mode of operation was changed from ‘Survivor’ to ‘Either or Survivor’ ii. Other documents relating to this act.
iii. Fixed Deposit Receipts and nomination forms, other than FDR A/c No. 30123248804, made by Mrs. Veena Paintal, wherein she had nom
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the purpose of providing the procedure of discovery by interrogatories in the CPC is to shorten the litigation, enable a party to obtain an ad....
The purpose of Order XI Rules 1 and 2 CPC is not aimed at filling up the lacuna at a belated stage.
The duty of the court to actively seek the truth and the power of interrogatories to narrow the issues and make the trial less time-consuming.
The stringent provisions of Order XI Rule 21 of the CPC should be applied only in extreme cases, where there is contumacy or a willful attempt to disregard the court's order.
The court allowed the production of documents not annexed to the plaint due to lack of coordination, establishing that reasonable cause for non-disclosure can be recognized under procedural rules.
Defendants must provide complete and truthful responses to interrogatories; failure to comply with court orders justifies correction by higher courts.
The court held that lack of coordination between the plaintiff's director and legal counsel constituted reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents, allowing their introduction in evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
