Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.
Devi Dutt Khetan S/o Shri Gavin Ram Khetan – Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Sita Devi W/o Late Shri Purshottamdas Khetan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1921 of 2020
Decided On : 28-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Mr. Daulat Sharma.
For the Respondent: Mr. Prem Shanker Shukla.
Point of law:
Interrogatories cannot be disallowed merely on the ground that the party interrogating has other means of proving the facts in question since one legitimate purpose or interrogatories is to obtain admission.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 - Section 30 - Suit for rendition of the accounts - Permanent injunction - Registrar of Firms – Partner - Audited balance sheet - “Interrogatories cannot be disallowed merely on the ground that the party interrogating has other means of proving the facts in question since one legitimate purpose or interrogatories is to obtain admission.
Facts of the case:
It was submitted that as per the documents obtained by her from the Registrar of Firms, she was partner in the firm and was entitled for profit corresponding her share in the firm. She alleged that for last some time, the defendants were not making her available audited balance sheet and details of the firm’s accounts. Therefore, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for. The defendant No. 4 in his written statement submitted that the plaintiff has retired from the partnership firm and has made bald and vague allegations in her plaint. During the course of proceedings, the petitioner-defendant No. 4 moved an application under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking to serve certain interrogatories on the plaintiff which has been rejected by the learned trial Court vide order impugned herein .
Finding of the court:
The conspectus of the aforesaid dictum is that serving the interrogatories is a valuable right of a party to the litigation and the Court should not deal with such interrogatories in lackluster manner without appreciating the same in the perspective of pleadings of the parties and issues framed thereupon. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the interrogatories served by the petitioner have been rejected merely on the premise that the petitioner has admitted in his written statement the factum of the plaintiff being partner in the firm with averment that she stood retired -The another reason assigned by the learned trial Court for rejecting the application has been that such information sought through interrogatories, could be obtained by the petitioner by subjecting plaintiff’s witnesses to cross-examination. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court for rejecting the application cannot be countenanced. When juxtaposed with the pleadings and issues framed thereupon, in the considered opinion of this Court, some of the interrogatories sought to be served on the plaintiff, appear to be relevant to elucidate the true facts and necessary to shorten the litigation.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 16.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Suit No. 52/2013 whereby, the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 4 under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, has been dismissed.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent No. 1 filed a suit for rendition of the accounts and permanent injunction contending that she herself, the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are partners in M/s. Vinod Textiles wherein she was having 25% share. It was submitted that as per the documents obtained by her from the Registrar of Firms, she was partner in the firm and was entitled for profit corresponding her share in the firm. She alleged that for last some time, the defendants were not making her available audited balance sheet and details of the firm’s accounts. Therefore, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for. The defendant No. 4 in his written statement submitted that the plaintiff has retired from the partnership firm w.e.f. 04.01.1994 and has made bald and vague allegations in her plaint. During the course of proceedings, the petitioner-defendant No. 4 moved an application dated 10.02.2019 under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking to serve certain interrogatories on the plaintiff which has been rejected by the learned trial Court vide order impugned herein.
3. Assailing the order dated 16.01.2020, it was contended by the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner that without examining the relevancy of interrogatories in the light of pleading of the parties and the issues framed thereon, the learned trial Court erred in rejecting the same on the premise of admission by the petitioner in his written statement about retirement of the plaintiff from the partnership firm w.e.f. 04.01.1994. He contended that approach of the learned trial Court in not entertaining the application on account that the petitioner would be free to ask these questions during cross-examination of the plaintiff, was totally misconceived.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Ramlalsao vs. Tansingh Lalsingh, AIR 1952 Nagpur 135, Sonia Senroy vs. Amit Senroy, M/s Hira Lal Dhanpat Rai vs. Laxmichand and A. Shanmugam vs. Ariya Kshatriay Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam, AIR 2012 SC 2010, submitted that the order impugned herein be set aside and his application be allowed.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the application preferred by the petitioner was not bona fide inasmuch as after submission of plaintiff’s evidence by way of examination-in-chief, the application came to be moved. He submitted that the plaintiff’s witness is aged about 80 years and the petitioner wants to avoid her cross-examination on one or the other pretext. He contended that order dated 16.01.2020 does not suffer from any such error; factual, legal, jurisdictional or procedural so as to warrant interference of this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. The object of the interrogatories has succinctly been laid down in case of Ramlalsao (supra) wherein it was held as under:
“10. The learned Judge erroneously refused leave on the ground that the interrogatories were not material at that stage of the suit, meaning probably, before the oral evidence was recorded. The application for discovery of documents was also disposed of on the same ground. We are of the view that these orders are erroneous. The right of a party to deliver interrogatories to his opponent and get answers from him is a valuable one in conducting his cause and he should not lightly be deprived of it. It must be remembered that discovery of facts and documents often tends to shorten litigation and save expenses. The learned Judge had not framed all the issues arising from the pleadings of the parties. If he had framed these
