The main legal point established in the judgment is that the extreme step of dismissing a suit for non-compliance with court orders can only be taken in extreme circumstances, and the party's conduct and obstinacy should be considered before invoking Rule 21 of Order 11 of the Code.

Thomas P. Joseph, J.

This civil revision arises from the judgment of learned First Additional District Judge Ernakulam in CMA No. 55 of 2010 setting aside the order passed by the learned II Addition Munsiff, Ernakulam on IA No. 1937 of 2010 in OS No. 577 of 2009. That is a suit filed by the respondent for injunction to restrain petitioner from constructing building, as the learned counsel submits exceeding three floors alleging that since width of the road in front of the building site is less than five metres and that construction of the building beyond three floors is in violation of the relevant Building Rules. Petitioner filed written statement contending that there is no violation. During the pendency of the suit petitioner, invoking Rule 1 of Order 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") filed IA No. 7740 of 2009 for leave to serve interrogatories on respondent/plaintiff. In short, the questions sought to be answered by the respondent was concerning construction respondent is said to have made, according to the petitioner, in violation of the Building Rules. It is not disputed before me that learned Munsiff allowed IA No. 7740 of 2009 and permitted petitioner to serve interrogatories on the respondent. In answer to the Interrogatories so served, respondent filed an affidavit which according to the petitioner was not sufficient as there was no sufficient answer given by the respondent on the material particulars with reference to the relevant questions. Thereon petitioner filed IA No. 573 of 2010 under Rule 11 of Order 11 of the Code to direct the respondent answer further on the questions which according to the petitioner were not answered sufficiently. It is not disputed before me that IA No. 573 of 2010 also was allowed. I appears that in answer to the order on IA No. 573 of 2010, respondent filed a memo (not even an affidavit) stating whatever he had to say it is thereafter that petitioner filed IA No. 1937 of 2010 to strike of the suit from the file for non-compliance with the orders on IA No. 7740 of 2009 and 573 of 2010. According to the petitioner, there was wilful non-compliance of orders of learned Munsiff on IA Nos. 7740 of 2009 and 573 of 2010. That application was resisted by the respondent. Learned Munsiff found that there is non-compliance with the orders passed by the Court and allowed IA No.1937 of 2010 invoking Rule 21 of Order 11 of the Code. The suit was dismissed. Respondent challenged that order before the learned Additional District Judge in CMA No. 55 of 2010. Before the learned District Judge it was contended that unless there was something akin to obstinacy and contumacy on the part of respondent in not complying with the directions of the Court, the extreme step of dismissing the suit cannot be resorted to. That argument prevailed before the learned District Judge who allowed the C. M. Appeal and set aside order on IA No.1937 of 2010. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of learned District Judge. It is argued by the learned counsel that there was total disobeyance of the orders by the respondent as is evident from the records and in particular, the answers he has given to IA Nos.7740 of 2009 and 573 of 2010. It is also pointed out that respondent who did not challenge the orders on IA Nos.7740 of 2009 and 573 of 2010, not only did not give sufficient answers to the interrogatories served but, in answer to IA No. 573 of 2010 did not even care to file an affidavit but chose to file a memo stating that questions are either irrelevant or are already answered. In the circumstances, learned District Judge should have held that there was obstinacy and contumacy on the part of the respondent in complying with the orders of the Trial Court which enabled the Trial Court to dismiss the suit invoking Rule 21 of Order 11 of the Code.

2. Learned counsel for respondent contends that interrogatories are not relevant for adjudication of the dispute involved and at any rate, non-answeri