Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1169 (MP)

Poonam Mansharamani (Smt. ) v. Ajit Mansharamani

2015-11-16

SUJOY PAUL

body2015
ORDER 1. The parties are at loggerheads on the validity of the order dated 31.7.2015, passed by the Sixteenth Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No.6-A/2014. 2. Draped in brevity, the facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for possession based on title and mesne profit against the respondent-defendant. The respondent filed his written-statement and contested the suit. The petitioner then filed an application under Order 11 rules 1 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) dated 29.4.2015 (Annexure P-7). Along with the said application, the petitioner enclosed interrogatories. In turn, the respondent filed his reply on 1.7.2015 (Annexure P-8). The Court below rejected the aforesaid application (Annexure P-7) by impugned order dated 31.7.2015. This order is called in question in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. Shri Chhabra, learned counsel for the petitioner criticized the said order by contending that the application (Annexure P-7) was filed in order to elicit the admission from the defnedant to avoid the lengthy evidence and with a view to get expeditious disposal of the suit. The Court below has erred in rejecting the application by giving an incorrect finding that the suit cannot be decided on the basis of the interrogatories, without appreciating the fact that purpose of furnishing interrogatories was not to have the disposal of suit based on such interrogatories but to expedite the trial of the suit by avoiding unnecessary procedural rigmarole. He submits that the Court below has rejected the application on irrelevant considerations. In support of his contention, he relied on AIR 1960 Cal. 536 (Jamaitrai Bishansarup v. Rai Bahadur Motilal Chamaria), and AIR 1952 Nag. 135 (Ramlalsao v. Tansingh Lalsingh). 4. Per contra, Shri Baheti, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order. He contended that the petitioner filed lengthy interrogatories. In a suit for possession, the interrogatories proposed were not relevant and, therefore, the Court below has not committed any legal error. In support of his submission, he relied on AIR 2000 Del. 354 (M/s. AFL Developers Pvt.Ltd. and another v. Smt. Veena Trivedi). 5. Learned counsel for the parties confined their contentions to the extent indicated above. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In support of his submission, he relied on AIR 2000 Del. 354 (M/s. AFL Developers Pvt.Ltd. and another v. Smt. Veena Trivedi). 5. Learned counsel for the parties confined their contentions to the extent indicated above. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Before dealing with rival contentions advanced by the parties, I deem it apposite to quote Order 11 rules 1 and 2, CPC, which reads as under : "1. Discovery by interrogatories. -- In any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave to 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." (Emphasis supplied) A plain reading of Order 11 rule 1 CPC shows that interrogatories may be delivered for examination of poosite party. A combined reading of various clauses of this order will make it clear that it is not necessary that by way of interrogatories itself the suit must be decided. Order 14 rule 3(b) reads as under : "3. Materials from which issues may be framed. -- The Court may frame the issues from all or any of the following materials : (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit." This provision makes it clear that the issues can be framed on the basis of answers to the interrogatories submitted by the other side. This itself makes it clear like noon day that if issues can be framed on the basis of interrogatories, it is not necessary that entire suit needs to be decided on the basis of interrogatories itself. The Court below in its finding opined that the interrogatories suggested by the plaintiff are related with the case. However, in the ultimate conclusion, the Court below opined that the suit cannot be decided on the basis of interrogatories only. The Court below in its finding opined that the interrogatories suggested by the plaintiff are related with the case. However, in the ultimate conclusion, the Court below opined that the suit cannot be decided on the basis of interrogatories only. Hence, the defendant cannot be compelled to file response to the said interrogatories. 8. In Ramlalsao (supra), a Division of Nagpur High Court opined that the right of a party to deliver interrogatories and get answers from the other side is a valuable right and a party should not be deprived of it. The Court opined that the interrogatories often shortens litigation aned save expenses. In Jamaitrai Bishansarup (supra), the Calcutta High Court opined that administering of interrogatories is to be encouraged because they not infrequently bring an action to an end at an earlier stage to the advantage of all parties concerned. The scope and ambit of Order 11 rule 1 CPC was considered by various High Courts. It is apt to quote certain judgments. In Bhakta Charan Mallik v. Nataorar Mallik [ AIR 1991 Ori. 319 ], the Orissa High Court held thus : "As a general rule, interrogatories are to be allowed whenever the answer to them will serve either to maintain the case of the party administering them or to destroy the case of the adversary. The power to serve interrogatories as it appears is not meant to be confined within narrow technical limits. It should be used liberally whenever it can shorten the litigation and serve the interest of justice. However, this can be exercised within limits. The power to order interrogatories to be served and answer should be used with considerable care and caution, so that it is not abused by any party. A party entitled to interrogate his opponent with a view to ascertain what case he has to meet and the facts relied on and to limit the generality of the pleadings and find out what is really is in issue. At the same time interrogatories must be confined to facts which are relevant to the matters in question in the suit. At the same time interrogatories must be confined to facts which are relevant to the matters in question in the suit. Interrogatories which are really in nature of cross-examination will not be allowed." In Delhi Vanaspati Syndicate v. K.C. Chawala [AIR 1983 JK 65], it is held as follows : "It is true that a party is not entitled to require its adversary to answer interrogatories, the effect whereof would be to enable it to know the facts, which exclusively constitute the evidence of his opponent's case. But, it is equally true that it can administer interrogatories to its opponent, to obtain admissions from him to everything that on the pleadings of the parties is material for the decision of the case, with the object of facilitating the proof of its own case, as also saving the costs which it may otherwise have to incur on adducing evidence to prove the necessary facts. As observed by their Lordships in Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi [ AIR 1972 SC 1302 ]. The interrogatories must have reasonably close connection with matters in question." In Tata Iron and Steel Co. v. Rajarishi Exports [AIR 1978 Ori. 179], it is observed as follows : "A party seeking answers to his interrogatories from the other party cannot direct the latter to answer the questions in a particular manner so as to suit the former's liking or convenience .... Any party to the suit or the Court may use any portion thereof as provided in rule 22 of Order 11 or the Court may ultimately reject any portion of the same by declaring the same as irrelevant or may ignore the same for all intents and purposes .... On serving interrogatories on a party under Order 11, rule 1, CPC one cannot compel that party to make discovery on oath of any document." In Nishi Prem v. Javed Akhtar [ AIR 1988 Bom. On serving interrogatories on a party under Order 11, rule 1, CPC one cannot compel that party to make discovery on oath of any document." In Nishi Prem v. Javed Akhtar [ AIR 1988 Bom. 222 ], the following is the extract of the observations made by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court : "This rule is enacted to enable the parties to know the nature of the opponent's case, but the rule does not entitle the party to ascertain the facts which constitute exclusively the evidence of the other side, the reason being that it would enable unscrupulous parties to tamper with the witnesses of the other side and to manufacture evidence in contradiction and so shape his case as to defeat justice. In cases where the plain or written-statement does not necessarily disclose the nature of the case, then interrogatories are administered to make good the deficiency. Interrogatories can also be administered to obtain admissions from other parties to facilitate the proof of the claim. Order 11, rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the interrogatories may be objected on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit or that the matters inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage. It is well-settled that the parties are not entitled to administer interrogatories for obtaining discoveries of facts which constitutes evidence of its adversary's case or title." In Ganga Devi v. Krishna Prasad Sharma [ AIR 1967 Ori. 19 ], the Orissa High Court would observe thus : "The main object of interrogatories is to save expenses by enabling a party to obtain an admission from his opponent which makes the burden of proof easier. The interrogatories are permissible with regard to matters which are relevant to the facts directly in issue and would not be extended to prying into the evidence where with the opposite party intends to support his case." In Ashok Kumar v. Dalmia Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research [ AIR 1986 Ori. The interrogatories are permissible with regard to matters which are relevant to the facts directly in issue and would not be extended to prying into the evidence where with the opposite party intends to support his case." In Ashok Kumar v. Dalmia Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research [ AIR 1986 Ori. 42 ], the gist of the observations made by the Orrisa High Court is as follows : "Though the administering of interrogatories is to be encouraged because they not frequently bring an action to an end at an earlier stage to the advantage of all parties concerned, it shall be seen that the interrogatories must be confined to matters which are in issue or sufficiently material at the particular stage of the action at which they are sought to be delivered, or to the relief claimed. The interrogatories should be confined to obtaining from the party interrogated admissions of facts which it is necessary for the party interrogating to prove in order to establish his case." In Thakur Prasad v. Md. Sohayal [ AIR 1977 Pat. 233 ], the Patna High Court would held thus : "The main object of interrogatories is to save expenses and time by enabling a party to obtain from the opponent information as to facts material to the question ind ispute between them and to obtain admissions of any facts which he has to prove on any issue which is raised between them. An admission of the adversary will serve to maintain the case of the party administering the interrogatory or the answer might be destructive of his own." In Rajasthan Golden Transport Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Avon F.I. Pvt. Ltd. [AIR 1984 Del. 286], the Delhi High Court would observe as follows : "The main object or delivering interrogatories by a party is to discover facts in order to facilitate the proof of his own case. However, the power to allow interrogatories to be administered by one party to another is alwlays subject to the discretion of the Court .... It is well-settled that interrogatories must be confined to the matters which are in issue or sufficiently material at the particular stage of the action at which they are sought to be delivered or to the relief claimed. It is well-settled that interrogatories must be confined to the matters which are in issue or sufficiently material at the particular stage of the action at which they are sought to be delivered or to the relief claimed. The proviso to Order 11, rule 1 in terms states that the interrogatories which do not relate to any matter in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant notwithstanding that they must be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness .... They must not be unreasonable, vexatious, prolix, oppressive or scandalous. Further, they must not be of fishing nature." While explaining the scope of Order 11, rule 1 CPC, the Supreme Court in Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Gandhi [ (1972)3 SCR 841 ], would observe as follows : "Questions that may be relevant during cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. The only questions that are relevant as interrogatories are those relating to "any matters in question". The interrogatories served must have reasonably close connection with "matters in question". Viewed thus, interrogatories 1 to 18 as well as 31 must be held to be irrelevant." 9. The common string as per the aforesaid judgment is that the administering of interrogatories is to be encouraged because they may be in aid to bring an action to an end at an earlier stage to the advantage of all parties concerned. Therefore, interrogatories are required to be examined on the anvil of Order 11 of CPC. The trial Court is required to examine whether the interrogatories have any reasonable close connection with "matter in question." 10. The core issue is whether the Court below was justified in rejecting the interrogatories on the sole ground that on the basis of interrogatories alone the suit cannot be decided. No doubt, Delhi High Court in M/s. AFL Developers Pvt.Ltd. (supra), opined that it is incumbent upon the Court to examine the interrogatories broadly to find out whether the same related to any matter in question in the suit. 11. In the opinion of this Court, the Court below has not given a finding that the interrogatories were not relevant as per Order 11 rule 1 CPC. The aspect of relevance has not been gone into in detail. 11. In the opinion of this Court, the Court below has not given a finding that the interrogatories were not relevant as per Order 11 rule 1 CPC. The aspect of relevance has not been gone into in detail. In the para in which conclusion is drawn, the Court below has almost reproduced the language of Order 11 rule 1 CPC and then opined that suit cannot be decided on the basis of interrogatories only. 12. There is no quarrel on the principles laid down in M/s. AFL Developers (supra). The same is in consonance with the clear language of Order 11 rule 1 CPC. However, it is seen that the Court below has not applied mind on the relevance of the documents and rejected the application on the singular ground that whole suit cannot be decided on the basis of interrogatories. 13. As analyzed above, it is clear that the Court below has rejected the application on incorrect and irrelevant consideration. Thus, order is not in consonance with the mandate of Order 11 rule 1 CPC. The Court below should have applied mind on the relevance of the interrogatories and then should have passed appropriate order. In the impugned order, the Court below has not dealt with the aforesaid aspect. 14. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 31.7.2015 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court below to rehear the parties on the application (Annexure P-7) and decide the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view on merits. 15. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated abhove.