Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
R. S. Chauhan, J.
Dr. Rajendra Ghiya —Petitioner
versus
Smt Sushila Gehlot and Anr. —Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1182 of 2010
Decided on 10.3.2010
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Interrogatories cannot be permitted for same sets of facts for which statements have already been filed.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 11, Rules 1 and 2—Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2000—Sections 15 and 21—Eviction suit—Application for interrogatories rejected—Statement made by petitioner in written statement controverted by respondent in her rejoinder—Since interrogatories related to same set of facts, Tribunal correctly held that there is no question of permitting interrogatories to be filed—Once pleadings are complete, once facts have been asserted and denied, then it is for parties to establish cases by marshalling out evidence— There is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in impugned order—Petition dismissed. (Paras 2, 5 and 6)
Result: Petition dismissed.
R.S. Chauhan, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 21.8.09 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner’s application for interrogatories, the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 1.5.2006, Smt. Sushila Gehlot, the respondent No.1, filed an eviction suit against the petitioner under Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for getting the rented premises vacated. On 2.3.2007, the petitioner filed the written statement. Thereupon, on 2.4.2007, Smt. Sushila Gehlot filed her rejoinder. Subsequently, on 22.8.2008, the petitioner filed an application under Order 11, Rules 1 & 2 CPC and Section 15 and 21 of the Rent Control Act along with the Interrogatories. Smt. Sushila Gehlot did not file any reply to the said application, but orally contested the application. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 21.8.2009, the learned Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s application. Hence, this petition before this Court.
3. Mr. Manish Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated application filed under Order 11, Rules 1 and 2 CPC in proper prospective. It has also erred in holding that since the pleadings are complete a prayer for interrogatories cannot be entertained.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.
5. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal had noticed that the statement made by the petitioner in the written statement was controverted by the respondent No. 1 in her rejoinder. Since the interrogatories related to the same set of facts, the learned Tribunal has correctly held that there is no question of permitting the interrogatories to be filed. Once the pleadings are complete, once the facts have been asserted and denied, then it is for the parties to establish the cases by marshalling out the evidence. Hence, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned order.
6. In this view of the matter, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Petition dismissed.
********
