Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 656 (AP)

Mudimela Konda Reddy v. Gona Nagi Reddy

2010-07-23

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2010
Judgment The petitioner filed O.S.No.9 of 2006 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, at Proddatur, against the respondents, for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession; and ancillary reliefs in respect of the suit schedule properties. The respondents filed written-statement denying the claim of the petitioner. The trial of the suit commenced, and it has proceeded to a substantial extent. The petitioner filed I.A.No.450 of 2008 under Order 11 Rule 1 C.P.C., with a prayer to grant leave to him, to deliver interrogatories to the respondents on certain aspects. The respondents 5 and 8 filed a counter-affidavit and opposed the application. It was pleaded that the I.A. was filed only with a view to protract the litigation. Even while stating so, the view points on the interrogatories were mentioned. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 23-04-2008. Hence, this revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties to a suit have every right to deliver interrogatories to other party and the latter is under obligation to answer the same. By placing reliance upon the judgment of Kerala High Court in P. BALAN v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA (AIR 2000 KERALA 24), he contends that the interrogatories can even touch the core issues in the suit and answer to such questions and would minimize the scope of controversy. He submits that the view taken by the trial Court cannot be sustained. The petitioner prayed for the reliefs of declaration of title, recovery of possession and other ancillary reliefs in respect of the suit property against the respondents. The burden rested upon him to prove his title and make out a case for delivery of possession. The respondents came forward with a specific plea that they are the absolute owners of the property and mentioned the manner in which, they are said to have acquired the title. The trial Court framed issues and the trial is in progress. Order 11 C.P.C. deals with the procedure for delivery of interrogatories by a party to the suit, and the steps to be taken thereon. On earlier occasion, the petitioner filed I.A.No.126 of 2007 under Rules 8 and 11 of Order 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C. That application was dismissed on 11-06-2007, on the ground that the correct provision was not mentioned. The same was challenged in C.R.No.3850 of 2007. On earlier occasion, the petitioner filed I.A.No.126 of 2007 under Rules 8 and 11 of Order 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C. That application was dismissed on 11-06-2007, on the ground that the correct provision was not mentioned. The same was challenged in C.R.No.3850 of 2007. The revision was dismissed on 26-11-2007 leaving it open to the petitioner to file proper application. The present application came to be filed in that context. The petitioner wanted the respondents to furnish the following information: 1) Each respondent should furnish the particulars of their respective occupied portion of schedule property with specific measurements in the ground floor as well as in the 1st and 2nd floors if any. 2) Each respondent should furnish the particulars of lease to whom they have leased out and for how much rent they have leased out and what is rental value in the event of their personal occupation. 3) Each respondent should furnish the particulars that how long they have been in occupation of schedule property in respect of their respective portions and since how long they have been enjoying rents. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents they have stated that the petition is not maintainable, and it is filed only with an object of protracting the proceedings. Even while saying so, they offered their answer to the interrogatories, as under: 1. The sale deed dated 24-01-1970 vide document No.162/1970, Xerox copies of sale deed dated 29-10-1994, doc.No.4592/1994, sale deed dated 31-10-1994 doc.No.4615/1994, Sale deed dated 31-10-1994 doc. No.4616/1994, partnership deed dated 04-10-1996, acknowledging registration of firm dated 16-12-1996 relating to the registration of the firm Nikhil Nursing Home registered as number 86/96 and the commissioner’s report filed by the commissioner in the above suit answer the interrogatories 1 and 3 in a crystal clear manner and there is no need again to repeat. 2. I object to answer interrogatory No.2 as it would arise only when the petitioner establishes his title to the property in question, and in view of the abundant documentary proof to establish the possession and enjoyment of the R1 to R4 in their own right and enjoyment. The trial Court took note of this, and dismissed the I.A. The information, which a party in a suit may ask from another for delivery of the interrogatories, must, no doubt, relate to the subject-matter of the suit. The trial Court took note of this, and dismissed the I.A. The information, which a party in a suit may ask from another for delivery of the interrogatories, must, no doubt, relate to the subject-matter of the suit. At the same time, the provision cannot be invoked to make or compel the other party to reveal the details of his defence, or to state something contrary to what has been pleaded by it. If one examines the interrogatories delivered by the petitioner from this point of view, it becomes clear that the information covered by the first interrogatory is the very fact, which the petitioner has to prove in the suit. The third interrogatory is impermissible, since that constitutes a defence as to adverse possession, if taken by a party and it is squarely a matter for adjudication in the suit itself. So far as the second interrogatory is concerned, it would become relevant, only if the suit is decreed, granting the relief of recovery of mesne profits also. There is absolutely no quarrel with the proposition laid down by the Kerela High Court in P. BALAN v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA (supra). However, the nature of interrogatories to be delivered by one party, and which need to be answered by the other, must be such that, it does not result in shifting the burden or onus of proof on the respective issues. The procedure under Order 11 C.P.C., cannot be treated as a substitute for discharge of burden of proof in a suit by the concerned party. The trial Court took correct view of the matter Therefore, the C.R.P. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.