1 SSK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 157 OF 2010 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 585 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 3376 OF 2005 Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. ....Appellant Versus M/s. B. Jeejeebhoy Vakharia & Associates & Ors. ....Respondents Mr. Rohit Kapadia, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Gaurav Joshi and Mr.Snehal Shah i/b. Ms.Tanvi Gandhi and Mr.Satyen Vora for the Appellant. Mr. D.D.Madon, Sr.Counsel a/w. Mr.Akram Bastvi i/b. M/s.Harilal Thakkar & Co., for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 10 & 12. Mr. M. V. Pandey with Mr. Vivek Kantawala & Co. for Respondent No.4. Mr. Kishore P. Jain i/b. Mr. Tushar Goradia & Mr. Bhavik Manek, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 7 & 11. CORAM : F. I. REBELLO & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2010. P.C.: The Appellant/Original Plaintiff takes exception to the order dated 10th December, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in chamber summons no.585 of 2009 in suit no.3376 of 2005, whereby the Appellant’s chamber summons seeking leave of the Court to administer interrogatories 2 to Respondents as per schedule annexed to the chamber summons is partly rejected. The Appellant filed a suit for specific performance based on Memorandum of Undertaking dated 22nd December, 2001. In this suit, the Appellant filed chamber summons for the relief mentioned above. The schedule annexed to the chamber summons contains 44 questions which are required to be answered by various defendants. The learned Single Judge by an order impugned in the Appeal directed: 1. Defendant No.5 to 12 to answer interrogatories at Sr. Nos. 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 & 6. 2. Defendant No.4 to answer interrogatories at Sr. Nos. 9 to 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 & 35. 3. Defendant No.2 to answer interrogatories at Sr. Nos. 31 & 32. 4. Defendant No.3 to answer interrogatories at Sr. No. 35. The learned Trial Judge, however, refused any relief to the Appellant in respect of the following interrogatories: Number of interrogatories not to be answered by Defendants Defendants who are directed not to answer the interrogatories. 7 & 8 Defendant Nos. 5 to 12 1 to 8 Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 15, 16 & 18, 24, 25, 26 & 27 Defendant No.4 9 to 21 Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 3 22 to 27 Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 28 Defendant No.3 29 Defendant No.2 30 Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 36 Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 12 37, 38 Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 39, 40, 41, 42 Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 43 & 44 Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 2. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Trial Judge erred in not granting leave to the Appellant to administer all the interrogatories as per the schedule annexed to the chamber summons. It was further submitted that all the interrogatories sought to be administered by the Appellant were necessary for disposing of fairly the suit by reducing evidence required to be tendered and also for saving costs. It was lastly submitted that all the interrogatories were necessary to be answered, so that the Appellant would not have to independently prove the facts which could be obtained from the answers to the said interrogatories and which if required to be proved independently, would involve exorbitant cost and substantially longer time. 3. The learned Counsel for the Respondents on the contrary contested the Appeal by challenging its maintainability under clause 15 of the Letters 4 Patent. The Respondents opposed the Appeal on merits also. It was contended that the interrogatories in respect of relief is not granted by the Trial Court are neither relevant nor relating to any matter in question, nor arising out of pleadings. It is submitted that the said interrogatories are in the nature of fishing inquiries. It was further submitted that the Apex Court by an order dated 5th February, 2009 directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of the order. The suit is at the stage of hearing and therefore, this Court need not interfere in the impugned order. 4. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned order, we do not find any merit in Respondents’ objection about maintainability of the Appeal. The question as to which order amounts to judgment came up for consideration before the Supreme Count in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji Versus Jayaben D. Kania & Anr. reported in AIR 1981 SC 1786 and it was held that whenever a Trial Judge decides a controversy which affects valuable rights of one of the parties, it must be treated to be a judgment within the meaning of the Letters Patent. The Supreme Court observed in finding out whether the order is a judgment, it is necessary to ascertain whether the order affects the merits of the action between the parties by determining some right or liability. Applying this test laid down by the Supreme Court, 5 we are of the view that the Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable. The preliminary objection of the Respondents in this regard requires to be repelled. 5. With the help of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, we have gone through the schedule annexed to the chamber summons. We have also gone through interrogatories in respect of which relief claimed by the Appellant is rejected. We find the said interrogatories are in the nature of fishing inquiries and therefore, the Plaintiff will have to prove the said facts by leading evidence. The learned Trial Judge has also arrived at the same conclusion. We do not find any error in the same, especially in view of the order of the Apex Court expediting the suit and the fact that the suit is actually at the stage of hearing. 6. In the result, we dismiss the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. (R. V. MORE, J.) (F. I. REBELLO, J.)