Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1728 (RAJ)

DEVENDRA KUMAR KALER v. VINOD KUMAR

2018-08-16

ALOK SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. Heard the counsel for the petitioner-defendant (hereafter 'defendant') and perused the impugned order dated 18.1.2017 which is under challenge to the extent that the Trial Court even while allowing the defendant's application filed under Order XI Rule 1 and 4 CPC for delivery of interrogatories to the respondent-plaintiff (hereafter 'plaintiff') postponed answer thereto to the stage of his evidence. 2. Mr.Manoj Bhardwaj counsel for the defendant submitted that the whole purpose of the interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 and 4 CPC is to identify the real and true nature of disputes between the parties for preparation of the case by the defendant, facilitate fair disposal of the proceedings before the trial court and save costs in meandering unfocused trials. It was submitted that the plaintiff laid a suit for specific performance against the defendant on the basis of a purported agreement to sell dated 15.5.1990. The defendant's defence in the written statement interalia was that it was forged and fabricated. Subsequent to filing of the written statement an application under Order XI Rule 1 and 4 CPC was moved, requiring the plaintiff to answer certain questions relating to alleged agreement to sell dated 15.5.1990 such as:- (i) The name and address of the stamp vendor from whom the stamp paper on which the agreement to sell dated 15.5.1990 was written, was obtained (ii) Name and the address of the Notary Public who attested the said agreement to sell dated 15.5.1990 (iii) Name and the address of the two witnesses to the agreement in issue and (iv) the draft-man's name who prepared the site plan annexed with the agreement to sell dated 15.5.1990. The plaintiff filed a reply to the application but it was not supported by an affidavit. 3. The Trial Court on consideration of the defendant's application found that in the context of the plaintiff's case founded upon the agreement to sell dated 15.5.1990 the delivery of interrogatories in issue by the defendant was justified and the plaintiff should answer them. However even while so doing the Trial Court, in a manner wholly without jurisdiction and ultra-vires Order XI Rule 1 to 4 CPC postponed the response to the interrogatories by the plaintiff to the stage of his evidence. However even while so doing the Trial Court, in a manner wholly without jurisdiction and ultra-vires Order XI Rule 1 to 4 CPC postponed the response to the interrogatories by the plaintiff to the stage of his evidence. Mr.Manoj Bhardwaj submitted that the Trial Court having found that interrogatories sought to be delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff were relevant for the determination of the real and true issues in the suit for specific performance, there was no occasion to postpone the response thereto to the stage of plaintiff's evidence. It was submitted that in the scheme and frame of Civil Procedure Code, the interrogatories filed under Order XI Rule 1 and 4 CPC evidently have to be answered prior to framing of issues under Order XIV CPC. 4. Mr.Vijay Poonia counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has a right to oppose the interrogatories subsequent to their delivery on him. He submitted that even otherwise the Order XI Rule 8 CPC does not provide for any time frame for furnishing response to the interrogatories delivered by one party to another. It lies in the discretion of the Trial Court to give time. And in the facts of the case the trial court has rightly postponed the furnishing of the response to the defendant's interrogatories to the stage of the plaintiff's evidence. There is no occasion to interfere with the impugned order in the exercise of this Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Heard. Considered. 5. The purpose of delivery of interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 and 4 CPC is to ascertain the real and material issues raised on pleading of the parties and thereby to exclude prolix proceedings in the suit. Hence where the Trial Court on an application under Order XI Rule 1 and 4 CPC filed in the suit finds that a case for delivery of interrogatories is made out by a party, it requires the opposite party to respond on an affidavit as provided under Order XI Rule 6, 7 and 8 CPC. Interrogatories have to be responded to prior to the framing of issues in the scheme of the CPC and the chronology of various procedures/ orders delineated to adjudicate suits. Interrogatories have to be responded to prior to the framing of issues in the scheme of the CPC and the chronology of various procedures/ orders delineated to adjudicate suits. The Trial Court has therefore failed to properly exercise its discretion under its impugned order dated 18.1.2017 observing that response to the interrogatories by the defendant be furnished at the stage of plaintiff's evidence, i.e. subsequent to framing of issues. To so do is like putting the cart before the horse. Response to the interrogatories when found necessary by the Trial Court ought to be on record prior to the framing of issues. 6. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 18.1.2017 passed by the Trial Court deserves to be quashed to the extent it directs that the response to the interrogatories of the defendant by the plaintiff be furnished at the time of the plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff is directed to respond to the interrogatories delivered on him by the Trial Court within a period of four weeks from today. That the plaintiff can do with reference to Order XI Rule 6 and 7 CPC. 7. The petition stands allowed accordingly.