Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 996 (ORI)

Ranjit Kumar Bhagat v. Balkrishna Mishra

2017-09-07

BISWANATH RATH

body2017
JUDGMENT BISWANATH RATH, J. - This Civil Miscellaneous Petition involves the impugned order at Annexure-4 involving rejection of an application under Order 11, Rule 1 of the Code Civil Procedure. 2. Short background involved in the case is that the suit by the opposite party was for eviction of the defendant, the present petitioner from the suit house, recovery of rent as well as mesne profit and other reliefs. After filing written statement, the defendant filed application under Order 11, Rule 1 read with Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide Annexure-3. This petition being objected entering into hearing, the trial Court by the impugned order rejected the application giving rise to the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition. 3. Referring to the pleadings involved in paragraph 2 of the plaint, the written statement response in paragraph-6 of the written statement and then referring to the question as framed for purpose of interrogatory appearing at pages 27 and 28 of the brief, Sri Udgata, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that entering into interrogatory, as has been asked by the defendant will reduce effort in the suit, the trial Court having failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter, Sri Udgata, learned counsel claimed that the impugned order became bad. Referring to two decisions rendered in the cases of Maria Margardia Sequeria Fernandes and Others v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through L.Rs., 2012 (I) CLR (SC)-731 Ghanashyam Das Tekriwal v. Smt. Jayanti Tiwari & Ors, 2016 (I) ILR-CUT-722, Sri Udgata learned counsel submitted that the decisions referred to have direct bearing on the case of the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order became otherwise bad for being contrary to the settled position of law. 4. Sri Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party on the other hand referring to the facts involved in the suit and particularly the suit being involved eviction of the defendant along with recovery of arrear rent and other relief, taking this Court to the questions framed in the application submitted that the questions submitted for interrogatory for being not relevant for the purpose of determination of the suit, there has been right rejection of the application by the trial Court and further referring to two decisions of this Court in the cases of Dr. Usha Patnaik and another v. Sri Goutam Patnaik, 1993 (II) OLR-511 and in the case of Smt. Kasturi Radhakrishna & Ors. V. M. Chinniyan & Anr., 2016 (Supp.1) OLR (SC)-775, particularly referring to paragraph-34 of the judgment in the case of Tmr. Kasturi Radhakrishnan & Ors. (Supra) contended that the case of the opposite party has a direct support of the aforesaid judgment and as a consequence urged for rejection of the Civil Miscellaneous Petition for having no merit involved. 5. Considering the rival contention of the parties, this Court finds filing Civil Suit No. 282 of 2016 the plaintiff prays for the following relief:- (a) eviction of the defendant from the suit house described in Schedule of the plaint and delivery of possession of the same to the plaintiff through Court. (b) Recovery of arrear rent of Rs. 23,100/- (Rupees Twenty Three Thousand One Hundred) from December, 2014 (Two thousand Fourteen) to May 2016 (Two Thousand Sixteen). (c) mesne profits of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) for the month of June 2016 (Two Thousand Sixteen) and subsequent mesne profits from July 2016 (Two Thousand Sixteen) till eviction of the plaintiff undertakes to pay Court fee on the amount of mesne profit so decreed by the Court. (d) all the cost of the suit. (e) any other fit, proper and equitable relief. Keeping in view the plaint averments of the respondent and on perusal of the question prepared for the purpose of interrogatory, this Court finds the questions framed therein have no relevancy in order to minimize efforts in the suit and accordingly defeats the purpose behind Order 11, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further, considering the citations cited at Bar, particularly, the citations cited by the petitioner, perusal of the citations this Court finds the decisions are clearly distinguishable for standing on different footing. Coming back to consider the decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Usha Patnaik and another (supra), paragraph-5 and 6 of the judgment referred to herein above reads as follows: “5. In the present case, the impugned order is one under Order 11, Rule1, C.P.C. in which the Court has allowed the interrogatories to be answered by the plaintiff. By such direction and obligation is created against the plaintiff to answer the same. In the present case, the impugned order is one under Order 11, Rule1, C.P.C. in which the Court has allowed the interrogatories to be answered by the plaintiff. By such direction and obligation is created against the plaintiff to answer the same. Thus, the order passed under Order 11, Rule 1, C.P.C. which creates the right in favour of the party requiring the interrogatories to be put, a corresponding obligation is created, against the other party to answer the same. Following the principles decided by this Court, I would, therefore, hold that the direction to answer interrogatories by a party amounts to ‘case decided’ within the meaning of the expression in Sec. 115 of the C.P.C. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, a close reading of the rule (Order 11, Rule 1) would show that the interrogatories which do not relate to any matter in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, as mentioned in the second proviso to the rule (Eemphasis supplied). The aforesaid expression “matter in question” will evidently mean that “matter in controversy” between the parties. The “matter in controversy” would mean that which has been alleged by one party and traversed by other. In the present case, the defendant has not yet filed his written statement. It is therefore, not possible for a Court to determine what are the matters in controversy and which questions put in the interrogatories would be relevant or otherwise. This being the language of the rule, interrogatories can be delivered only at that stage, when the matters in issue are before the Court from which the Court can determine relevance or otherwise thereof. I would, therefore, hold that the impugned order cannot be supported.” The other decisions for having no relevance in the case at hand are not required to be dealt with. 6. For the observations of this Court hereinabove and taking into consideration the decisions of this Court in the above reported case, this Court finds the petitioner fails in satisfying the purpose behind Order 11, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for considering for the purpose of the case of interrogatory at this stage of the suit. Consequently, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order leaving no scope for interfering in the same. 7. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed for having no merit. No cost. CMP dismissed.