Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 171 (AP)

Reddys Laboratories Limited v. Y. Srinivasa Rao

2009-03-17

P.S.NARAYANA

body2009
Judgment :- Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad, filed the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved of an order made in I.A.No.431 of 2005 in O.S.No.88 of 2003 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. 2. The said application was filed under Order XI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Code" for the purpose of convenience) praying permission of the Court to deliver interrogatories in writing for examination of the respondent-plaintiff. The learned Judge, after formulating the point for consideration at para 4, referred to the Order made in C.R.P.No.411 of 2006, dated 09.02.2007, by this Court, further referred to the portions of the pleadings, the issues settled and also referred to the decision in Smt. P. Seethamma and others v. P. Ramakrishna Reddy and others ( 1997 (1) ALT 322 ) and Rajnarain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi ((1972) 3 Supreme Court Cases 850) and ultimately came to the conclusion that the application to be allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition had been preferred. 3. Sri B. Nalinkumar, learned counsel representing revision petitioner had taken this Court through the respective stands taken by the parties and also the findings recorded by the learned Judge and would maintain that without proper application of mind and without recording reasons whether these specific interrogatories are relevant in relation to the questions in controversy involved in the matter had allowed the said application and, hence, the order cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also pointed out to the order made in C.R.P.No.411 of 2006. The learned counsel also placed the orders made in I.A.Nos.518, 512, 511, 510, 509, 508, 507, 506, 505, 504, 503, 502 and 501 of 2005 in O.S.No.88 of 2003 and also the written statements, certificates, letters, accounts, re-remand case diary, F.I.R, letters to Post-Master and other relevant documents before this Court. 4. The learned counsel also placed the orders made in I.A.Nos.518, 512, 511, 510, 509, 508, 507, 506, 505, 504, 503, 502 and 501 of 2005 in O.S.No.88 of 2003 and also the written statements, certificates, letters, accounts, re-remand case diary, F.I.R, letters to Post-Master and other relevant documents before this Court. 4. On the contrary, Sri M. Sivananda Kumar, learned counsel representing respondent had placed the additional written statement, the auditors report and pointed out to the relevant portions of the said additional written statement and also the auditors report and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case since the learned Judge exercised the discretion in proper perspective, the same need not be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard the counsel. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this civil revision petition: (1) Whether the order under challenge in the civil revision petition is liable to be disturbed or to be confirmed in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled? 7. Point No.1: This civil revision petition is filed by Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited, petitioner-respondent-plaintiff, being aggrieved of an order made in I.A.No.431 of 2005 in O.S.No.88 of 2003 on the file of the Court aforesaid. The said application was filed under Order XI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code praying for permission of the Court to deliver interrogatories in writing for examination of the respondent-plaintiff and the learned Judge after referring to C.R.P.No.411 of 2006 and the order made thereunder, after recording certain reasons ultimately allowed the application. Hence, the present civil revision petition. 8. The said order dated 19.2.2007 made by this Court in C.R.P.No.411 of 2006 reads as hereunder: "This revision is filed against the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad in I.A.No.431 of 2005 in O.S.No.88 of 2003, refusing to deliver interrogatories. In this case, the learned Judge has not discussed even what were the questions raised, but has termed them to be vague and has held that the matters do not relate to the questions raised in the suit. In this case, the learned Judge has not discussed even what were the questions raised, but has termed them to be vague and has held that the matters do not relate to the questions raised in the suit. Therefore, the revision is allowed, order impugned is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Judge, who may pass orders afresh after hearing the parties." 9. The averments made in the plaint and the stand taken in the written statement had been briefly referred to in the affidavit filed in support of the application and the following interrogatories had been specified. (1) Is it not a fact that all the cheques mentioned in the schedules are sent by the Company Secretary to the concerned people with his covering letter through post? (2) Is it not a fact that there are 4 Strategic Business Units (SBUs) of the Company, namely, (i) Corporate SBU, (ii) Bulk SBU, (iii) Formulations SBU & (iv) Drug Discovery Research SBU? (3) Is it not a fact that the cheques, which are shown in the plaint 'A', 'B' & 'C' schedules were issued on the basis of the proceedings of all the above SBUs separately? and is it not a fact that the cheque up to Rs.1.00 lakh is to be signed by the Senior Manager and General Manager? And cheques above Rs.1.00 lakh are to be signed by the Vice President and President of the Company and cheques above Rs.5.00 lakhs are to be signed by the Managing Director of the Company? (4) Is it not a fact that the respective cheques are signed by the above designated officers, according to the value of each instrument? (5) Is it not a fact that such cheques are signed on the basis of the approval of the concerned Account Sections of various SBUs? (6) Is it not a fact that in the report given to the Police, you stated on behalf of the plaintiff that an amount of Rs.1.42 crores was defalcated and even by the time it is stated that an amount of Rs.94,56,872/- is recovered? (6) Is it not a fact that in the report given to the Police, you stated on behalf of the plaintiff that an amount of Rs.1.42 crores was defalcated and even by the time it is stated that an amount of Rs.94,56,872/- is recovered? (7) Is it not a fact that in the Directors Report of the Company for the financial year 2003-04, which was placed before the General Body in its Annual General Meeting, which was duly approved by the General Meeting that you have shown in your accounts that you have recovered an amount of Rs.1.55 crores? (8) Is it not a fact that you have not received any complaint from any of the Lawyers or Advertising Agencies about their non-receipt of the fees? (9) Is it not a fact that the 1st defendant never handled any of the cheques at any point of time, as it is always beyond his scope of functions in the legal section, whereas cheques are issued on the basis of proposals and recommendations of the Accounts Department, in which the 1st defendant never worked, as that Section is distinct and different and operates from a different building? (10) Is not a fact that there is no document to show that the 1st defendant ever handled any instrument in any manner? (11) Is it not a fact that accounts are maintained by each SBU separately and cheques are also issued by each SBU separately and reconciliation was done only at the end of the financial year by preparing consolidated statement, therefore, the entries in the plaint 'A', 'B' & 'C' schedules are covered by the transactions of all the 4 SBUs and the 1st defendant has no access to any of the business units, except Legal Section?" 10. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent-plaintiff the said averments made in affidavit had been denied and it is stated that there is no need of permitting serving of such interrogatories at all. 11. The order made in C.R.P.No.411 of 2006 already had been referred to above. It is pertinent to note that this Court specifically observed that in this case the learned Judge had not discussed even what were the questions raised, but had termed them as vague and held that the matters do not relate to the questions raised in the suit. 12. It is pertinent to note that this Court specifically observed that in this case the learned Judge had not discussed even what were the questions raised, but had termed them as vague and held that the matters do not relate to the questions raised in the suit. 12. No doubt, certain submissions were made in relation to the scope and ambit of Order XI Rule 1, Rule 4, and Rule 5 of the Code as well. Order XI Rule 1 of the Code dealing with Discovery by interrogatories reads as hereunder. "In any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of 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." 13. Order XI Rule 4 of the Code dealing with Form of interrogatories reads as hereunder: "Interrogatories shall be in Form No.2 in Appendix C, with such variations as circum- stances may require." 14. Order XI Rule 5 of the Code dealing with Corporations reads as hereunder: "Where any party to a suit is a corporation or a body of persons, whether incorporated or not, empowered by law to sue or be sued, whether in its own name or in the name of any officer or other person, any opposite party may apply for an order allowing him to deliver interrogatories to any member or officer of such corporation or body, and an order may be made accordingly." 15. Certain further submissions were made that these questions are interrogatories as well can be put in cross-examination when the appropriate witnesses were examined and hence there is no need of allowing the application filed under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code. 16. Certain further submissions were made that these questions are interrogatories as well can be put in cross-examination when the appropriate witnesses were examined and hence there is no need of allowing the application filed under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code. 16. In Rajnarain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi (1972) 3 Supreme Court Cases 850) the Apex Court held that questions that may be relevant during cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories are those relating to 'any matters in question'. The interrogatories served must have reasonably close connection with 'matters in question'. Where the interrogatories do not touch core of the questions, but mere touch the fringe of the matter, they must be held to be oral evidence. 17. In Smt. P. Seethamma and others v. P. Ramakrishna Reddy and others ( 1997 (1) ALT 322 ) learned Judge of this Court at paras 4, 5 and 9 observed as hereunder: "A reading of Section 30 CPC shows that the Court has got power to order discovery or permit interrogatories at any time. Order 11 Rule 1 CPC contemplates service of interrogatories on the opposite party with the leave of the Court. A conjoint reading of these two provisions make it clear that the Court can at any stage allow service of interrogatories in its discretion. But, at the same time, the discretion must be exercised in a judicious way. The information sought to be furnished must have some nexus or relevancy with the dispute in question. A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana high Court in Hercharn Singh vs. State of Punjab observed that "section 151 CPC is the reservoir of that power whereunder inherent powers can be exercised by the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Obviously, in order to exercise inherent powers, facts and circumstances of each case would have to be seen by the Court if it comes to the view that a person purposely, contumaciously and maliciously was withholding documents required to be produced by it. I see no reason why the Civil Court in that situation to further the object of Sections 30 and 32, CPC exercise the inherent powers under section 151 of the said Code. I see no reason why the Civil Court in that situation to further the object of Sections 30 and 32, CPC exercise the inherent powers under section 151 of the said Code. " It is needless to say that under the guise of these powers, it cannot be permitted to have a roving or fishing enquiry in respect of matters, which are not relevant for the purpose of the suit. It is also pertinent to note that all questions, which are relevant for cross-examining the witness may not be also relevant for the purpose of interrogatories. Bearing these principles in view, the question whether the petitioners should be permitted to serve the interrogatories in this case has to be examined. As already seen, any party can be served with interrogatories, which are relevant and in (sic with) the matter under controversy. The nature of the property in dispute is one of the issues for consideration before the lower court. Therefore, in my view, the service of interrogatories on the fourth respondent cannot be said to be irrelevant or unconnected with the matter in question. As already stated, under Section 30 CPC the interrogatories can be served at any time. In this case, the execution of the registered Will cannot be a matter of notice to the public during the life time of the fourth respondent. As such, the only way to find out the truth is only by service of interrogatories. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the lower Court has erred in dismissing the said application without considering the relevant aspect of the matter and failed to take into consideration the relevant provisions of law while disposing of the matter. Accordingly, the order of the lower Court is set aside and the revision petition is allowed. But, in the circumstances, without costs." 18 In P. Balan v. Central Bank of India, Calicut (AIR 2000 Kerala 24) learned Judge of Kerala High Court observed at paras 8 and 9 as hereunder: The object and purpose of serving interrogatories is to enable a party to require information from his opponent for the purpose of maintaining his own case or for destroying the case of the adversary. The answering of the interrogatories might save expenses and shorten the litigation by enabling a party to obtain from the other side information as to material facts regarding the questions in dispute or issues raised or to obtain admission of facts which the plaintiff has to prove on any issue. Answering the interrogatories might often shorten the trial proceedings and save the time of the Court and parties besides saving expenses for summoning witnesses, documents and the like. As a general rule, therefore, interrogatories are to be allowed whenever the answer to them will serve either to help the party in proving his case or to destroying the case of the adversary. The power is not meant to be confined within narrow limits. It should be used liberally whenever it can shorten the litigation and serve the interest of justice. Nevertheless, the power is to be exercised with care and caution so that it is not abused by any party. Interrogatories have to be confined to the facts which are relevant to the matters in question in the suit. A plaint or a written statement may not sufficiently disclose the nature of parties to the case, and to make good the deficiency, either party can serve interrogatories in writing which, when answered, would enable the Court to decide the suit without probing into the questions elaborately in the light of oral and documentary evidence. The Courts have to approach the question in a broad perspective aimed at seeing whether the grant thereof will enable fair trial and would save the cost of litigation to the parties. Of course, the possible objections specifically mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XI, C. P. C. also have to be considered. The interrogatories have to bear a reasonable close connection with the matters in question. A party is entitled to administer interrogatories to his opponents to obtain admission from him with the object of facilitating proof of his case as also to save the costs which may otherwise be incurred in adducing evidence to prove the necessary facts. I find some merit in the contention of the revision petitioner that the question of admissibility of the interrogatories have not been considered by the Court below from the right perspective. The order is not speaking in nature. I find some merit in the contention of the revision petitioner that the question of admissibility of the interrogatories have not been considered by the Court below from the right perspective. The order is not speaking in nature. It may be that some of the interrogatories are not admissible; but at least some of them cannot be stated to be totally irrelevant. One such question is the basis of calculation in the statement of account with regard to the interest prevailing from time to time. The petitioner's case that the agreement entered into between the parties mentioned only of interest linked with the R. B. I. rate and not any specific rate appears to be correct. A lot of time and energy can be saved if the specific rate of interest prevailing at each period is let known to the defendant so that he can verify the statement of accounts produced in the case from that perspective. It is true that the respondent is a Bank; but even Bank's statements can be erroneous. The impugned order is found to be defective as it has not considered each of the interrogatories bearing in mind the provisions of law and legal principles aforementioned. It is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court below for fresh decision through a speaking order." 19. The object of interrogatories is two fold. (1) To know the nature of the case of the opponent; (2) To support his own case either directly by obtaining admissions or indirectly by impeaching or destroying the case of the opponent. It may be true that interrogatories may be administered by any party to a suit to his adversary and they may relate to any matter in issue in the suit. 20. Justice C.K. Thakker in Code of Civil Procedure, Volume 3, while specifying rules as to discovery by interrogatories specified as hereunder. (i) Interrogatories may be administered in writing with the leave of the court and subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed by it. (ii) The particulars of interrogatories proposed to be delivered should be submitted to the court, which shall be decided by the court within seven days from filing of the application. (iii) Interrogatories may be administered either by the plaintiff to the defendant or by the defendant to the plaintiff. (ii) The particulars of interrogatories proposed to be delivered should be submitted to the court, which shall be decided by the court within seven days from filing of the application. (iii) Interrogatories may be administered either by the plaintiff to the defendant or by the defendant to the plaintiff. (iv) Interrogatories may also be administered by one plaintiff to another plaintiff or by one defendant to another defendant, provided there is some question or issue between them in the suit action or proceeding. (v) No party can deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same party without an order by the court. (vi) In exceptional cases, a court may allow more than one set of interrogatories to one and the same party. (vii) Generally, no leave can be granted to the plaintiff for administering interrogatories until the written statement is filed by the defendant or the time to file the written statement has expired. Similarly, no such leave can be granted to the defendant until he files the written statement. (viii) Where a party to s suit is a corporation or a body of persons empowered to sue or be sued, interrogatories may be administered to an officer or member of such corporation or body. (ix) Where a party to a suit is a minor or a lunatic, interrogatories may be administered to his next friend or guardian ad litem. (x) Interrogatories and an affidavit in answer to interrogatories should be delivered in the prescribed form. (xi) Interrogatories shall be answered by affidavit to be filed within ten days after the service of the interrogatories or within such period as the court may allow. (xii) Interrogatories must relate to or have reasonable nexus with any matter in question in the suit. (xiii) Interrogatories must be as to question of fact and not as to conclusions of law, inferences of facts or construction of documents. (xiv) Interrogatories which do not relate to any matter in question in the suit should be deemed to be irrelevant. (xv) Interrogatories cannot be allowed at a premature stage. (xvi) Interrogatories may be objected inter alia on the ground that they are vexatious, scandalous, irrelevant, unreasonable, not bona fide to the questions raised in the suit, injurious to public interest, 'fishing' in nature, etc. (xv) Interrogatories cannot be allowed at a premature stage. (xvi) Interrogatories may be objected inter alia on the ground that they are vexatious, scandalous, irrelevant, unreasonable, not bona fide to the questions raised in the suit, injurious to public interest, 'fishing' in nature, etc. (xvii) Interrogatories may be set aside on the ground that they have been administered unreasonably or vexatiously, or struck off on the ground that they are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous. (xviii) Generally, the costs of the interrogatories shall be borne by the party administering the interrogatories. But the court may direct the party at fault to pay the costs of the interrogatories irrespective of the result of the suit. (xix) Any party may, at the trial of the suit, use in evidence any one or more of the answers or any part of an answer of the opposite party to interrogatories. (xx) Where any person fails to comply with an order to answer interrogatories his suit can be dismissed if he is a plaintiff, or his defence can be struck off if he is a defendant. 21. The order made in C.R.P.No.411 of 2006 already had been referred to supra. On a careful reading of the reasons recorded by the learned Judge, this Court is satisfied that the order under challenge was not made in consonance with the order made by this Court. It is needless to say that there must be proper application of mind, especially, in a case where this Court made an order of remand. In the light of the same, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Judge to hear both parties and dispose of the application in accordance with law. 22. Point No.2: In the result, the civil revision petition is hereby allowed to the extent indicated above remitting the matter to the learned Judge to give opportunity to both the parties to advance their further submissions and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made by this Court earlier and in this order as well. No Costs.