Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
K.C. Sivasankara Panicker, S/o. Elath Ravunni Panicker – Appellant
Versus
K.C. Vasanthakumari Alias K.C. Vasanthi, D/o. Malathi Amma – Respondent
The decision supports the view that interrogatories can be filed during the trial, provided there are valid reasons and changed circumstances that justify their submission. The court's stance indicates that such applications are not strictly restricted to pre-trial stages and can be considered at any point during the trial if they are relevant to the issues being litigated and do not cause undue prejudice to the opposing party (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Defendant No.1, in a suit, challenges the order of the Trial Court granting leave to the plaintiff to deliver interrogatories, in this Original Petition. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the members of the Kuttipurath Chelath Tharawad. Defendant No.2 is the mother of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 is the uncle of the plaintiff.
2. The Plaint Schedule Properties, along with some other properties, originally belonged to the tharawad. Some of the members of the tharawad filed O.S No.76/1960 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode seeking partition of the tharawad properties. The Court decreed the suit. A preliminary decree was passed on 03.01.1970. In the final decree proceedings, the properties were partitioned. The plaintiff was a minor at the time of passing the final decree. Her mother (defendant No.2) had acted as her guardian. Later, defendant No.2 remarried. The plaintiff attained majority on 09.07.1972. She was married off. After the marriage, the plaintiff shifted her residence to Goa. Item numbers 32, 36 and 81 properties in the final decree were set apart to the share of the plaintiff and defendant No.2. Item numbers 256(B), 47(9), 49(3), 66(A), 4
Interrogatories must be relevant to the matters in question and can be allowed even after a previous application is dismissed if based on changed circumstances.
Court mandates delivery of relevant interrogatories in partition suit despite prior document misplacement claim, setting aside rejection order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the opposite party has the right to oppose the grant of leave to serve interrogatories, and the court is not proscribed from issuing notice on....
The purpose of Order XI Rules 1 and 2 CPC is not aimed at filling up the lacuna at a belated stage.
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....
Defendants must provide complete and truthful responses to interrogatories; failure to comply with court orders justifies correction by higher courts.
The final decree in a partition suit must comply with the preliminary decree, which is binding, and any deviations must be justified under proper legal procedures.
The objections raised by third parties in execution proceedings must fall within the scope of the proceedings under Order 21 Rules 97 to 103 of the CPC and cannot be decided in execution proceedings ....
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
