Back
1998 Supreme(J&K) 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
A.K. Goel, J.
Jugal Raj Gandotra & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Yashpal Sahni & Anr. - Respondent
Civil Revision Nos. 14, 17 And 82/1997
Decided On : 21 January, 1998
The court has to exercise its discretion with utmost restraint and circumspection while allowing or declining interrogatories, and it should not allow interrogatories which are intended to delay the proceedings or to enable the party to know the facts which constitute the opponent's evidence.
Headnote:
INTERROGATORIES - ORDER XI, RULES 1 AND 21, C.P.C. - RELEVANCE AND MATERIALITY - PURPOSE OF ENACTING PROVISIONS - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS - JUDICIAL DISCRETION - EXERCISE OF - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED.
Fact of the Case:
In a suit for ejectment, the defendants filed an application under Order 11, Rule 1, C.P.C. for serving interrogatories to be answered by the plaintiffs. The trial court allowed some of the interrogatories and declined the rest. The defendants filed a revision petition against the order declining some of the interrogatories, and the plaintiff filed a revision petition against the order allowing some of the interrogatories.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it while partly allowing the interrogatories filed by the defendants and committed gross illegality as well as material irregularity in passing the impugned order. The court further held that the defendants are out to protract and consequently delay the decision of the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing some of the interrogatories filed by the defendants? 2. Whether the trial court erred in declining some of the interrogatories filed by the defendants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The purpose of interrogatories is to extract admissions, with the object to shorten the litigation. Material circumstance and purpose of enacting provisions of Order XI and XII, C.P.C. is to cut short the matter as well as cost of litigation regarding relevant and material facts so that time of the Court and parties as well as energies and money to be incurred by the litigant is saved. 2. Interrogatories can be ordered to be served upon the opponent to obtain admissions from him, but those have to have material bearing on the case itself and further a party is not entitled to call upon its opponent to answer such an interrogatory which would tend to enable it to know the facts which constitute the opponents evidence. 3. Simply because the party, who intends getting interrogatory served upon and answered by the opponent has other means of proving the fact in question by itself would not be a ground to decline the prayer made for service of interrogatories.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the defendants and allowed the revision petition filed by the plaintiff. The court also directed the defendants to pay costs to the plaintiff in both the revision petitions.
2. Brief facts of the cases need to be noticed in order to understand the controversy involved in the case. A suit for ejectment has been filed by Yashpal Sahni (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against M/s. Gandotra Traders (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) in the Court of District Judge, Jammu. Main plea for seeking ejectement against the defendants was that the shop under their tenancy was reasonably required by the plaintiff as well as his sons for their personal use and occupation and their necessity is comparatively much more greater than the defendants as till date the plaintiff has been carrying an his business at Srinagar, but now with the changed circumstances and situation prevalent in Srinagar it has become impossible to carry on trade smoothly and without any hinderance there. Even the sons of the plaintiff are without any job and need immediate settlement in their lives in order to safeguard their interests in future. This plea of the plaintiff has been controverted by the defendants in the written statement filed by them. According to them, plaintiff is carrying on number of businesses and, therefore, his requirement was not bona fide and number of other pleas were also raised by the defendants. It was specifically pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff is running a wholesale glass business in the city of Srinagar at Maghar Mull Baug, Near Jahangir-Hotel, he was also stated to be running his glass business with the help of his son at Srinagar. In addition to this, plaintiff was stated to be running a glass shop in double-storeyed building at Pucca Danga, Jammu just opposite the premises in question where there is a big shop which comprises of two shops, on the ground floor plaintiff was slated to be doing wholesale business with his father under the name and style of M/s. Sahni Glass House and on the first floor of these premises he was stated to be doing wholesale glass business under the name and style of M/s. Sahni Agencies. Other facts were also pleaded in order to controvert the claim made by the plaintiff.
3. Trial Court framed issues in this case on 18-11-1991 which are to the following effect: -
1. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for being filed without any cause of action ?. ... OPDs.
2. Whether the suit shop is reasonably required by the plaintiff for his personal use and occupation and his requirement is more than that of the defendants ? ....OPP.
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff is not the landlord of the defendants ? . . . . .OPD.
4. Relief.
4. Record of the case shows that on 10-8-1992, issue No. 2 was re-cast and an additional issue No. 2-A was framed to the following effect: -
2. Whether the suit shop is reasonably required by the plaintiff for himself and for his sons for their personal use and occupation and the requirement is comparatively more than that of the defendants ? ...... OPP.
2-A. Whether the requirement of the plaintiff can be met by partial ejectement of the defendants from the suit shop ? .... O. P. Parties.
5. After framing of the issues plaintiff concluded his evidence and when the turn of the defendants came to summon their evidence, they furnished a list of as many as 59 witnesses. This was seriously objected to by the plaintiff who preferred Civil Revision No. 137 of 1993 which came up for-consideration before this Court and vide its judgment dated 9-9-1994, the Court while disposing of the said revision petition held, On the foregoing analogy, I, while allowing this revision petition hold that the impugned order in this petition suffers from infirmities and causes miscarriage of justice. Same is quashed and the learned counsel for the defendants who appeared at this stage, is directed to file the list of ten witnesses, he propo
