C.R.No.4679 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4679 of 2011 Date of decision: 05.12.2011 Bhupinder Kumar and another . ..Petitioners Versus Ajay Pal Goyal and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioners. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The defendant-petitioners filed an application under Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “the Code”) for answering certain interrogatories by the plaintiffs. The same was declined by the trial court vide order dated 5.5.2011 which has been impugned in the present revision petition. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. The respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 18.6.2007 extended upto 30.4.2009. Prayer was also made for directing the defendants to execute the sale deed and deliver the vacant possession of the suit property. A further prayer for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-defendants from alienating/transferring/mortgaging the suit property was also made. The suit was contested by the petitioners by filing reply. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant-petitioners filed an application under Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code for leave of the 1 C.R.No.4679 of 2011 Court to deliver the interrogatories. The application was contested by the plaintiffs. The trial court vide impugned order dismissed the said application. Hence this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the interrogatories appended as Annexure P.5 which had been submitted by the defendant-petitioners were essential for the decision of the case and the trial court erred in declining the prayer of the petitioners. He placed reliance upon decision of this Court in Major Singh v. Suresh Kumar, 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 667. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not find any merit in the revision petition. 5. Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code reads as under:- “Discovery by interrogatories – In any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of 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 matter in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross examination of a witness.” 6. According to the aforesaid Rule, the plaintiff or the defendant with the leave of the Court is entitled to deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite party or 2 C.R.No.4679 of 2011 any one or more of such parties which are essential for the just decision of the suit. However, in the present case, issues were framed on 1.4.2010 and evidence of the plaintiffs had already been concluded. It was at the stage when the case was fixed for the evidence of the defendants that the alleged interrogatories were furnished by the defendant-petitioners. Though interrogatories can be sought at any time but the same has to be bonafide and without any delay. In this case, counsel for the petitioners was unable to explain why interrogatories could not be furnished at the initial stage itself and what was the necessity to seek reply by interrogatories when the evidence of the plaintiffs had already been concluded. 7. Referring to the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners in Major Singh’s case (supra), the same does not come to the rescue of the defendant-petitioners as in that case alongwith the written statement, the petitioner had moved an application for discovery by interrogatories to the plaintiff for his examination under Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code. Such being not the position in the present case, the same does not advance the case of the petitioners. 8. No fault can be discerned from the order of the trial court warranting interference by this Court. 9. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. December 05, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3