C.R.No.1083 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.1083 of 2011 Date of decision: 10.3.2011 Simranjit Kaur and another ….Petitioners Vs. Lakhbir Kaur ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Jaswant Singh, J Plaintiffs-petitioners have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the order dated 6.1.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nakodar, District Jalandhar whereby their application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC has been dismissed. Facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-petitioners filed a civil suit No.123 dated 13.6.2009 for declaration to the effect that Bakhshish Singh son of Chanchal Singh died intestate, hence they along with defendant being legal heir of said Bakhshish Singh are entitled to inherit the equal shares i.e 1/3rd each of all the moveable and immoveable properties as well as the amount lying in the various banks, post office and other financial institutions with a further relief of rendition of accounts and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from withdrawing any amount lying in the bank etc. Upon notice, the suit was resisted and during the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC was filed by the C.R.No.1083 of 2011 #2# plaintiffs-petitioners for discovery of documents. Upon notice, reply dated 20.9.2010 (P.4) was filed by the defendant-respondent. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the defendant had already provided the detail of one account of said Sh. Bakhshish Singh as mentioned in the written statement and she has no knowledge of the other bank account of the deceased Bakhshish Singh, hence the present petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the paper book. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the learned trial Court has grossly erred while dismissing the application and not ordering for discovery of the documents as the defendant-respondent was having the full information regarding the documents mentioned in para 5 of the application filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners and instead of dismissing the same it ought to have allowed the application for proper adjudication of the matter in controversy. Learned counsel in support of his contentions cites a judgment of this Court reported as Major Singh v. Suresh Kumar 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 667. A perusal of para 5 of the application filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners reveals that they had sought certain documents allegedly in possession of defendant-respondent, the contents of which read as under: “That the defendant is bound to disclose the following documents in her possession. i) That all the FDR's with account numbers, all the saving bank accounts of Bakhshish Singh deceased in which she claims to be a nominee. ii) That she is also required to disclose and produce all the documents in which she has withdrawn the amounts from the C.R.No.1083 of 2011 #3# various banks accounts in the name of Bakhshish Singh deceased along with details of blanks and accounts nos. iii) That she is bound to produce the document of ownership of Bakhshish Singh of the immovable land in the various villages including the village Tandaura, Parjian Khurd Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar and also disclose the documents of tile of immovable properties. iv) That she is also bound to disclose the documents regarding the accounts and money deposited in the name of Bakhshish Singh deceased in the Punjab National Bank, Adda Mehatpur, Nakodar and also in Punjab National Bank, Mehatpur. v) That she is also bound to disclose the accounts of post offices and documents of deposit with the financial institutions with their name.” In reply converting the averments made in para 5 referred above, the defendant-respondent submitted as under: “i) In reply to para No.1 defendant has her joint account with the deceased Bakshish Singh in Punjab National Bank Adda Mehatpur bearing account No.9429 and the defendant being Nominee has her account No.2288 Punjab National Bank Mehatpur (photo copies are attached). ii) Reply to Para No.ii is already given in para No.1 above. Iii) That defendant object to produce the documents because Jamabandi are Public documents and can be obtained from the Revenue Department. iv) Reply to this Para is already given in para No.1. v) That in reply to Para No.(v) defendant has no documents pertaining to post office.” A perusal of the averments made by the defendant-respondent quoted above, it is amply clear that the deceased Bakhshish Singh was having only one joint bank account with defendant-respondent in Punjab National Bank, Mehatpur bearing A/c No.9429 and she had supplied the photo copy of the same. So far as FDRs, accounts with post office and other financial institutions are concerned, she has specifically denied that she is C.R.No.1083 of 2011 #4# not having any information and so far as documents of ownership of immovable property is concerned, the stand of the defendant-respondent that these are public documents and jamabandi can be obtained from the revenue department is correct. In the present case, the reasoning given by the learned trial Court that it is obligatory on the part of the plaintiffs themselves to give all details of accounts etc regarding which they have filed the suit is perfectly legal and justified as it is the plaintiffs, who are to specifically aver in their pleadings and prove the same by way of legally admissible evidence and not to merely come up with a vague plea in the plaint. In the present case, it is the specific stand of the defendant- respondent that the suit of the plaintiffs is vague when no detail of movable or immovable of the deceased Bakshish Singh has been given by the plaintiff-petitioner.. So far as legal proposition in Major Singh's case (supra) is concerned, there is no doubt that law of discovery by interrogatories should be encouraged so as to shorten the trial and also for saving cost of the parties in leading their respective evidence but the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the cited case only a halfhearted attempt was made to oppose the application of the petitioner seeking leave to deliver the interrogatories upon him. But in the present case, the defendant-respondent has specifically come up with the stand that except one joint bank account with the deceased Bakshish Singh, she had no knowledge about any other bank account and, therefore, the defendant- respondent cannot be forced for discovery of the documents of which she has no knowledge or information. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed C.R.No.1083 of 2011 #5# hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 6.1.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nakodar, District Jalandhar warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. March 10, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE