Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 507
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
DINESH MEHTA, J.
Govind Narayan S/o Shri Jorawar Nath Nagda & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Nagendra Nagda S/o Shri Ghanshyam Lal Bhatt & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7803 OF 2016
Decided On : 04-09-2017
For the Petitioners:Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashok Thanvi & Mr. Narendra Thanvi
For the Respondents: Mr. Dalpat Raj Bhandari
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code ,1908 - Section 151 - Order XI Rule 1 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 227 – Jurisdiction - Seeking leave to admit interrogatories - Partnership deed - Appeal has been invoked by petitioner oppugning order nutshell within confines of application consideration and order passed pursuant thereto are that plaintiffs- Respondents filed a suit for rendition of accounts and permanent injunction against petitioner defendants having control over partnership business of a firm - Defendants filed their written statement and then defendants moved an application - Seeking to administer a series of questions requiring plaintiff to answer - Held, This Court is of considered view that order impugned is just and proper though it could have been a bit more comprehensive - Court has committed no wrong in rejecting application keeping stage of suit consideration - Petitioners could not convince Court as to how order impugned is prejudicial to cause of petitioners - There is neither any material irregularity nor any wrongful exercise of jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court - Needless to clarify that petitioners would still have their right preserved to ask these questions to plaintiffs/plaintiffs witnesses during course of cross-examination - As a result of rejection of their application Order Rule of Code of Civil Procedure petitioners right have not even been impacted much less substantially and adversely effected - Petition Dismissed
The legal document concerns a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by the trial court rejecting an application to admit interrogatories in a civil suit for rendition of accounts and permanent injunction related to a partnership firm.
The key points are as follows:
-
The application to admit interrogatories was filed by the defendants with the aim of expediting the suit and clarifying facts relevant to the dispute (!) (!) . The trial court rejected this application after a lengthy consideration, primarily on the grounds that the questions posed were not relevant or would not contribute to a quicker resolution of the case, especially given the stage of the proceedings (!) (!) .
-
The petitioners argued that the purpose of interrogatories is to facilitate effective and expeditious disposal of the suit by obtaining admissions that can narrow down issues (!) (!) (!) . They contended that the rejection of their application was unjustified and that the order was non-speaking and lacked proper reasoning (!) (!) (!) .
-
The respondents' counsel maintained that the order was within the court’s discretion, and that the questions were either irrelevant or could be asked during cross-examination, thus not warranting a separate order to admit interrogatories (!) (!) .
-
The court observed that the application had been pending for a long period (since 2004) and that most of the questions related to land ownership, which were not directly relevant to the core issue of the suit—accounting and partnership disputes (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that the purpose of interrogatories is to shorten litigation and that their relevance must be carefully considered, especially at advanced stages of proceedings where evidence has already been recorded (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court also noted that the questions could be posed during cross-examination and that the right to ask questions remains unaffected by the rejection of the application (!) (!) .
-
Ultimately, the court found no error or arbitrariness in the trial court’s order and dismissed the petition, concluding that the order was just, proper, and within the bounds of judicial discretion (!) (!) .
In summary, the court upheld the trial court’s exercise of discretion in rejecting the application for interrogatories, considering the stage of the suit, the relevance of the questions, and the potential for questions to be asked during evidence. The petitioners’ right to question witnesses during cross-examination remains intact, and the order under challenge was not found to be arbitrary or capricious.
1. The supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by the petitioners, oppugning the order dated 21.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court), whereby an application under Order XI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave to admit interrogatories has been rejected.
2. The facts in a nutshell, within the confines of the application under consideration and order passed pursuant thereto are that the plaintiffs- respondents No.1 to 4 filed a suit for rendition of accounts and permanent injunction against the petitioner – defendants, having control over the partnership business of a firm known as ‘Hotel Vinayak’.
3. The plaintiffs and defendants, with a view to carry on hotel business, formed a partnership firm by executing a partnership deed dated 09.03.1990. The said firm predominantly comprised of brothers and sisters, out of whom Govind Narayan, the defendant No.1, – became a Managing partner and the firm came into existence with effect from 01.02.1989.
4. With the passage of time, there developed certain differences and disputes, which led the plaintiffs to institute a suit on 25.05.2004, for rendition of accounts.
5. The defendants filed their written statement and then the defendants No. 1 to 6 moved an application dated 05.08.2004, under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code, seeking to administer a series of questions, requiring the plaintiff to answer.
6. By way of the said application, the petitioners posed as many as 26 questions, mostly hovering around the title of the land on which the hotel has been constructed, while a few of them were other questions which required pointed answers from various plaintiffs and defendant No.7. While submitting the application, the petitioner stated that as a result of the interrogatories, the proceedings would not be unnecessarily protracted and the suit would be decided effectively and the otherwise uncalled for evidence would be avoided.
7. The subject application under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, though filed for the avowed object of deciding the suit expeditiously, but came to be considered and decided by the Trial Court only after twelve years, vide the order dated 21.05.2016, which has been made a subject matter of the present petition.
8. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties on the application rejected the same, vide its order dated 21.05.2016, with the following reasoning:-
^^i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g rF; mHkj dj vkrk gS fd vf/kdre iz'u Hkkxhnkjh QeZ ftl Hkw[k.M ij lafLFkr gS] mlds {ks=Qy ls lEcfU/kr gSa] tcfd oknh dk okn fglkc Qsgeh dk gSaA iz'u oknhx.k ds okn i= ds vfHkopuksa ls lEcfU/kr gSa] ftu ij izfroknh viuk i{k tokc nkos esa j[k pqads gSA izfroknhx.k dk ;g dFku fd ;g izkFkZuk le; cpkus ds fy, cpr gsrq is'k fd;k x;k gSa] ysfdu ;g dFku fojks/kkHkklh dFku gSa] D;ksafd ;g okn lu~ 2004 ls yfEcr gSa o izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk layXu iz'uhdj.k fdlh Hkh :i esa okn ds _tq fuiVkjs ;k [kpksZa esa cpr ds fy, vko';d ugha yxrs gSaA ifjiz'uksa dk uspj ,slk gS fd izfroknh buds tfj, oknh ls Øksl ,Dtkfeus'ku djuk pkg jgk gksA pwafd vkns'k 11 fu;e 1 fl-i-la- ds ijUrqd esa ;g of.kZr gS fd os ifjiz'u tks okn esa iz'uxr fdUgha fo"k;ksa ls lEcfU/kr ugha gSa] bl ckr ds gksrs gq, Hkh folaxr le>sa tk,xs fd lk{kh dh ekSf[kd izfrijh{kk esa os xzkg~; gksrsA ,slh n'kk esa izfroknhx.k dk mDr izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gksus ls vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSaA
vkns'k
ifj.kker% izfroknh la[;k 1 ls 6 dh vksj ls ,d vkosnu vUrxZr vkns'k 11 fu;e 01 lifBr /kkjk 151 fl-iz-la- fnukafdr 05-08-2004 dks vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA**
9. Calling in question the order dated 21.05.2016, Mr. R.K. Thanvi, learned Senior Counsel navigated this Court through the application dated 05.08.2004 as well as the interrogatories annexed there with and submitted that the entire purpose of requiring answer from the opposite
