C.R. No. 5606 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5606 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.09.2010 Jagannath Bansal .......... Petitioner Versus Prem Chand & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two civil revisions i.e. C.R. Nos. 5606 & 5607 of 2010 both titled as Jagan Nath Bansal Vs. Prem Chand Bansal & others, as the identical questions of law and facts are involved. The plaintiff / respondent No.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant / petitioner from alienating the more than his share i.e. ½ share in the property. The plaintiff / respondent also sought the rendition of accounts from the defendant / petitioner of the property leased out to respondent / defendants No. 2 to 5. In order to prove the amount served interrogatories for directing the defendants to provide their PAN number, income tax returns, and the rent recovered by C.R. No. 5606 of 2010 -2- defendant No.1, as also the rent notes, and the receipts issued. The defendant / petitioner also filed an application seeking interrogatories from the plaintiff / respondent No.1, directing him to produce the income tax assessment order , and the rent received by him. The learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff / respondent No.1, for the reason, that the plaintiff / respondent had prayed for rendition of accounts, as the property was joint of the parties, and the claimed raised was regarding the share of the plaintiff vis-a-vis other members of the family. The learned trial Court held, that the plaintiff had a right to seek interrogatories. The application filed by the plaintiff / respondent was allowed. The application filed by the defendant / respondent No.1 was dismissed, as there was no claim by the petitioners against the plaintiff, seeking any relief. The returns of the plaintiff / petitioners were, therefore, not required for adjudication of the lis between the parties. Mr. Arun Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, challenged the impugned order, on the ground, that the interrogatories called for were neither necessary nor could be allowed, as the defendant could not be directed to prove the case of the plaintiff, as it was for the plaintiff to prove his case by leading evidence. This contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, can not be accepted, because it is admitted, that the property is joint, and it was not disputed that the defendant / C.R. No. 5606 of 2010 -3- respondent had rented out the premises to the tenants. The interrogatories sought were relevant for adjudication of the case. The learned trial Court was also right in dismissing the application moved by the petitioner, as the information sought, was not necessary for adjudication of the case for want of any claim by the petitioner. No ground for interference, therefore, is made out, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 24.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE