Court mandates delivery of relevant interrogatories in partition suit despite prior document misplacement claim, setting aside rejection order.

J U D G M E N T

This original petition is filed challenging Ext.P11 order by which the prayer to deliver interrogatories was rejected by the Sub Court, Thalassery, in O.S No.40/2014. The suit is one for partition. During the pendency of the suit, it appears that the petitioner had filed I.A No.512/2016, requiring to direct the 2nd defendant to furnish details of certain documents. The said application was dismissed on 27.02.2017. The said order was challenged in O.P.(C) No.1412/2017 before this Court. The challenge was upheld and Ext.P6 judgment was rendered, holding that no prejudice will be caused the defendant, if the details are furnished. Therefore, a direction was issued to the 2^nd defendant to furnish the details sought for or to file an affidavit. In pursuance to the said direction, Ext.P7 affidavit was filed by the 2^nd defendant stating that the documents are not in her possession and she does not have the details. A case of misplacement of the documents was the content of Ext.P7 affidavit. Thereafter, Ext.P8 interrogatories was submitted by the petitioner along with I.A No.1/2024, requiring certain details to be answered. In response to Ext.P8, Ext.P9 answer was given stating that the 2^nd defendant has no right to the mother’s property, and that the interrogatories sought to be delivered are irrelevant and does not relate to the matter in question. It was further pointed out that even if the father had allegedly bought and transferred the property in favour of the 2^nd defendant, there is nothing unnatural about the said transaction. Therefore, it was contended that, if the answers are delivered to the interrogatories, the same would change the character of the suit. By Ext.P11 order, the trial court concluded that the questions which are now raised in the interrogatories are totally irrelevant to the consideration of the suit and accordingly, the same was rejected and I.A was dismissed. Hence, this original petition.

2. Heard Smt.Meena A., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri.P.V.Nandagopal Nambiar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Smt.Meena A., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that Ext.P11 order stands in strong contrast to the directions contained under Ext.P6 order. The trial court could not have ignored the directions in Ext.P6 and refused to direct the 2^nd respondent to deliver the interrogatories as sought for. The finding that the request for delivery of interrogatories are totally irrelevant to the dispute raised in the suit is also unsustainable.

4. Per contra, Shri.P.V.Nandagopal Nambiar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the findings of the trial court in Ext.P11 order and contended that once the interrogatories sought for are delivered, it will change the character of the suit itself. A new plea which is contradictory to the plea in the suit will be now permitted to be agitated before the court. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2014, he prayed that the impugned order be sustained. On merits of the claim, it is pointed out that the documents which are now sought to be delivered are not available with the 2^nd defendant, since it is misplaced and therefore it is impossible for the 2^nd respondent to deliver the interrogatories as sought for.

5. I have considered the submissions raised across the Bar, perused the impugned order in the original petition.

6. The relevancy of the details required to be sought for and its bearing on the suit, was noticed by this Court while rendering Ext.P6 judgment. But still, this Court directed the 2^nd defendant to furnish the details or to file an affidavit. The response to