Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2550 (ALL)

Manoj Jaitly v. State of U. P.

2015-08-21

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. Heard counsel for the petitioners and Sri Arvind Kumar for the second respondent. 2. The petitioners have instituted Original Suit No.208 of 2015 for restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering in their possession except in accordance with law. According to the plaint assertions, the petitioners are occupying the premises in dispute as tenant on behalf of the second respondent. The second respondent contested the proceedings by filing written statement, in which a categorical plea was taken that the petitioners were never inducted as tenant, but they were permitted to occupy the premises on temporary basis as licensee. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application serving interrogatory on the defendant purportedly under Order 11 Rule 1, 2 and 4 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The trial court by order dated 9.7.2015 rejected the application by holding that the interrogatories contain questions, which are wholly irrelevant to the controversy involved in the suit. The order has been affirmed with the dismissal of the revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the defendant had denied the rent receipts filed by the petitioners to prove the tenancy and, therefore, the interrogatories in question were served. 5. The revisional court in its order has duly taken into consideration the nature of the interrogatories sought to be delivered to the defendant and has thereafter held that the questions posed are wholly irrelevant. The relevant observations, in this regard, in the judgment of the revisional court are as under: - "During hearing of the suit the plaintiffs moved an application seeking pre-interrogatories to the effect that the defendant No.1 be directed to answer that whether defendant is a a registered institution or not and the present secretary is elected secretary or not and since when and lastly that temporary licenses were given to him and when. In considered opinion of this Court, the basis of plaintiffs suit is that they were tenant in the suit property. Hence they are required to prove that they have legal right to remain in the suit property and cannot be dis-possessed otherwise the course of law. Whether the defendant is a registered institution or represented by duly elected body or not, are not main subject matter of the suit and can be looked into incidentally if the circumstances so desire. Hence they are required to prove that they have legal right to remain in the suit property and cannot be dis-possessed otherwise the course of law. Whether the defendant is a registered institution or represented by duly elected body or not, are not main subject matter of the suit and can be looked into incidentally if the circumstances so desire. Thus I do not find any illegality in the impugned order." 6. Under Order 11 Rule 7 C.P.C. it is specifically provided that where the interrogatories do not relate to any matters in question, and thus irrelevant, it can be struck out. In the instant case, the courts below having come to the conclusion that the interrogatories in question are irrelevant to the controversy involved. No exception can be taken to the view expressed by the courts below. 7. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.