IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.10.2025 UMESH GUPTA … PETITIONER VERSUS MONIKA SINGAL … RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dr, Parveen Hans. Advocate, and Mr. Aditya Narayan Arya Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.(Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC") seeking leave to deliver interrogatories to the respondent, was dismissed.

FACTS

2. The brief facts are that the respondent instituted the Eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and eviction) Act, 1973 before the learned Rent Controller, Hisar, for eviction of the petitioner- Tenant from shop at ground Floor forming part of Municipal Property No. 234/92/15-I, ID No.30C125U129, which is presently at the stage of evidence before the learned rent controller. After the examination-in-chief of one of the witnesses had already commenced, the petitioner moved an application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC seeking permission to administer interrogatories to the respondent. However, the learned Civil Judge, vide the impugned order, dismissed the said application holding that the interrogatories sought by the petitioner could be raised during cross-examination, and the application was nothing but a device to delay the proceedings.

CONTENTIONS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC was filed to obtain specific admissions from the respondent on material facts relating to the property in dispute. It is pointed out that the respondent or her predecessor had earlier filed an eviction petition concerning the same premises, but the description and dimensions of the property mentioned therein differ from those given in the present case. The petitioner, therefore, sought interrogatories to clarify whether the present premises is identical to that involved in the previous proceedings and to determine the correct extent and identification of the tenanted property. It is contended that these matters are exclusively within the respondent’s knowledge, and answers to the interrogatories would assist the Court in avoiding confusion or multiplicity of evidence.

4. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, has placed reliance upon the judgments of Canara Bank v. Rajiv Tyagi, 2010 (20) RCR(Civil) 569, Major Singh v. Suresh Kumar, 2009 (5) RCR (Civil) 667; Tara Batra v. Punam A Kumar, 2021 (284) DLT 198, and Surjit Kaur v. Raghbir Singh, 2011 (2) Law Herald 993, to contend that mere observation by the trial Court that the questions proposed could be asked during cross-examination is not a sufficient ground to reject an application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC. It is argued that the object of interrogatories is to obtain admissions before trial to shorten litigation and that the trial Court erred in taking a restrictive view. The petitioner claims that the interrogatories sought were relevant to the controversy and that rejection on such a ground defeats the purpose of discovery contemplated under the Code. Thus, the learned counsel asserts that the application was made bona fide to secure necessary clarification. He submits that interrogatories are a legitimate tool of discovery and can be invoked at any stage before the conclusion of trial. It is further submitted that the trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and adopted a hyper-

technical approach.

OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully examined the record along with the impugned order. The application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC was rightly