Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 868
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sujoy Paul, J.
Poonam Mansharamani (Smt.) v. Ajit Mansharamani
Writ Petition No.5641 of 2015 (Indore); Decided on 16.11.2015.
R.S. Chhabra for petitioner;
Vishal Baheti for respondent.
Headnote:Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.11 Rr.1 and 4 -- scope of powers -- application under along with interrogatories -- rejected by Court below on ground that suit cannot be decided on basis of interrogatories only -- no finding that interrogatories were not relevant as per O.11 R.1 CPC -- aspect of relevance has not been gone into in detail -- Court below not applied mind on relevance of documents and rejected application on incorrect and irrelevant consideration -- impugned order set aside -- matter remitted back to rehear parties on application and decide same in accordance with law -- petition allowed.
Held : In the opinion of this Court, the Court below has not given a finding that the interrogatories were not relevant as per Order 11 rule 1 CPC. The aspect of relevance has not been gone into in detail.
It is clear that the Court below has rejected the application on incorrect and irrelevant consideration. Thus, order is not in consonance with the mandate of Order 11 rule 1 CPC. The Court below should have applied mind on the relevance of the interrogatories and then should have passed appropriate order. In the impugned order, the Court below has not dealt with the aforesaid aspect. (1972)3 SCR 841 followed. AIR 1960 Cal. 536, AIR 1952 Nag. 135, AIR 1991 Ori. 319, AIR 1983 JK 65, AIR 1978 Ori. 179, AIR 1988 Bom. 222, AIR 1967 Ori. 19, AIR 1986 Ori. 42, AIR 1977 Pat. 233 and AIR 1984 Del. 286 relied on.
flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk-11 fu-1 rFkk 4 && 'kfDr;ksa dh O;kfIr && mica/kksa ds v/khu vkosnu ds lkFk ifjiz'u && fupys U;k;ky; }kjk bl vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd okn dsoy ifjiz'uksa ds vk/kkj ij fofu'p;u ugha fd;k tk ldrk && bl izdkj dk dksbZ fu'd"kZ ugha fd ifjiz'u flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds vk-11 fu-1 ds vuqlkj lqlaxr ugha Fks && lqlaxfr ds igyw ij foLrkj ls tk¡p ugha dh xbZ && fupys U;k;ky; }kjk nLrkostksa dh lqlaxfr ij foosd dk iz;ksx ugha fd;k rFkk vkosnu xyr rFkk vlaxr fopkj ij [kkfjt fd;k && vk{ksfir vkns'k vikLr && ekeyk vkosnu ij i{kdkjksa dks iqu% lquus rFkk fof/k vuqlkj mlh dk fofu'p; djus gsrq izfrizsf"kr && ;kfpdk eatwjA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bl U;k;ky; dh jk; esa fupys U;k;ky; }kjk bl izdkj dk dksbZ fu'd"kZ ugha fn;k fd ifjiz'u flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds vk-11 fu-1 ds vuqlkj lqlaxr ugha FksA lqlaxfr ds igyw ij foLrkj ls tk¡p ugha dh xbZA
;g Li"V gS fd fupys U;k;ky; }kjk vkosnu xyr rFkk vlaxr fopkj ij [kkfjt fd;kA bl izdkj vkns'k flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds vk-11 fu-1 dh vk'kk ds vuq:i ugha gSA fupys U;k;ky; dks ifjiz'uksa dh lqlaxfr ij foosd dk mi;ksx djuk pkfg, Fkk rFkk rHkh leqfpr vkns'k ikfjr djuk pkfg, FkkA fupys U;k;ky; us iwoksZDr igyw ij fopkj ugha fd;kA ¼1972½3 ,l lh vkj 841 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1960 dy- 536] , vkb vkj 1952 ukx- 135] , vkb vkj 1991 mM+hlk 319] , vkb vkj 1983 ts ds 65] , vkb vkj 1978 mM+hlk 179] , vkb vkj 1988 ckWEcs 222] , vkb vkj 1967 mM+hlk 19] , vkb vkj 1986 mM+hlk 42] , vkb vkj 1977 iVuk 233 rFkk , vkb vkj 1984 fnYyh 286 voyafcrA
¼iSjk 11 ,oa 13
1. The parties are at loggerheads on the validity of the order dated 31.7.2015, passed by the Sixteenth Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No.6-A/2014.
2. Draped in brevity, the facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for possession based on title and mesne profit against the respondent-defendant. The respondent filed his written-statement and contested the suit. The petitioner then filed an application under Order 11 rules 1 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) dated 29.4.2015 (Annexure P-7). Along with the said application, the petitioner enclosed interrogatories. In turn, the respondent filed his reply on 1.7.2015 (Annexure P-8). The Court below rejected the aforesaid application (Annexure P-7) by impugned order dated 31.7.2015. This order is called in question in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.
3. Shri Chhabra, learned counsel for the petitioner criticized the said order by contending that the application (Annexure P-7) was filed in order to elicit the admission from the defnedant to avoid the lengthy evidence and with a view to get expeditious disposal of the suit. The Court below has erred in rejecting the application by giving an incorrect finding that the suit cannot be decided on the basis of the interrogatories, without appreciating the fact that purpose of furnishing interrogatories was not to have the disposal of suit based on such interrogatories but to expedite the trial of the suit by avoiding unnecessary procedural rigmarole. He submits that the Court below has rejected the application on irrelevant considerations. In support of his contention, he relied on AIR 1960 Cal. 536 (Jamaitrai Bishansarup v. Rai Bahadur Motilal Chamaria), and AIR 1952 Nag. 135 (Ramlalsao v. Tansingh Lalsingh).
4. Per contra, Shri Baheti, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order. He contended that the petitioner filed lengthy interrogatories. In a suit for possession, the interrogatories proposed were not relevant and, therefore, the Court below has not committed any legal error. In support of his submission, he relied on AIR 2000 Del. 354 (M/s. AFL Developers Pvt.Ltd. and another v. Smt. Veena Trivedi).
5. Learned counsel for the parties confined their contentions to the extent indicated above.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Before dealing with rival contentions advanced by the parties, I deem it apposite to quote Order 11 rules 1 and 2, CPC, which reads as under :
"1. Discovery by interrogatories. -- In any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave to the Court may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties and such interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of such persons is required to answer :
Provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same party without an order for that purpose :
Provided also that interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness." (Emphasis supplied)
A plain reading of Order 11 rule 1 CPC shows that interrogatories may be delivered for examination of poosite party. A combined reading of various clauses of this order will make it clear that it is not necessary that by way of interrogatories itself the suit must be decided. Order 14 rule 3(b) reads as under :
"3. Materials from which issues may be framed. -- The Court may frame the issues from all or any of the following materials :
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit."
This provision makes it clear that the issues can be framed on the basis of answers to the interrogatories submitted by the other side. This itself makes it clear like noon day that if issues can b
