..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6983 OF 2006 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6983 OF 2006 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6983 OF 2006 Kesu Yesu Tapkir (since deceased) through one of the L.Rs. a)Smt.Jayawantibai Mahadeo Korde. ..Petitioner. Versus Versus Versus Amit Enterprises and Ors. ..Respondents. .. Mr.S.N.Chandrachood, Adv. for the Petitioner. Mr.G.S.Godbole, Adv. for Respondent Nos.1 & 4 to 15. .. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : JANUARY 16, 2008. DATED : JANUARY 16, 2008. DATED : JANUARY 16, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 4 to 15. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 3. The petitioner has filed a Suit for specific performance against the respondents including the main contesting respondent No.1-M/s.Amit Enterprises. An application came to ..(2).. be filed by the petitioner i.e. plaintiff therein under Order XI Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, whereby directions were sought to respondents (i.e. defendant No.1 therein) to answer the interrogatories submitted alongwith the said application. 4. The petitioner has submitted five interrogatories which are as under :- (a) Whether after 23.9.2005 till the moment, the defendant No.1 has entered into any transaction transferring thereby in any form any portion of the building being constructed on the suit land ? (b) If answer of the above question is in affirmative or yes, then, (c) Such transaction is in writing or oral ? If in writing, (d) Spare copy at the costs of the ..(3).. plaintiff for confirmation of the plaintiff to the adherence by you to the undertaking referred to above. (e) Similarly the title report given by P M Khire, learned Counsel for defendant No.1 for the scheme prior to 29.7.2005 has been suitably modified or not? 5. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that an order came to be passed by this Court on 27.9.2005 and in Para-7 of the said order it was directed that the present respondents shall file an undertaking before the trial Court that the construction in progress on the suit land shall be subject to the final decision in the Suit being R.C.S.No.255 of 2004 and defendant No.1 shall not claim an equity if the Suit is decided against it. In the said Para-7 it was further directed that defendant No.1 shall also undertake to inform to the third parties while transferring in any form any portion of the buildings to be constructed on the suit ..(4).. land, regarding pendency of the suit and that the construction shall be subject to the final decision therein. The said undertaking was to be filed within one week from the date of the order. 6. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the petitioner requires the information whether the said undertaking was filed and whether the third parties had been informed that the construction shall be subject to the final decision in the suit, so that he can amend the suit if found necessary. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Jt.C.J.S.D., Pune by order dated 19.9.2006. Being aggrieved by the said order this Petition has been preferred. 7. Order XI Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code lays down that : "In any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories in writing when the Exam.of the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties ..(5).. and such interrogatories when delivered, shall have a note at the foot thereof starting which of such interrogatories each of such persons is required to answer. ...." . The learned Judge rejected the application on the ground that the Suit was filed on 18.2.2004, therefore, the facts which occurred on or before 18.2.2004 may be called as relevant to the Suit as those facts may be necessary in order to decide the controversy between the parties. The learned Judge further observed that the plaintiff has not amended the suit and sought any further relief regarding the subsequent events. The learned Judge further observed that the interrogatories submitted by the plaintiff were not concerned with the reliefs claimed in the suit. Hence the application by the plaintiff to answer the interrogatories was not necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties. The learned Judge, therefore, rejected the application holding that the interrogatories were ..(6).. irrelevant. 8. On perusal of the interrogatories, it is clear that the interrogatories pertain to the period after the suit was filed. As stated earlier, the suit was filed on 18.2.2004, therefore, the facts which occurred after 18.2.2004 would not be necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties or to grant or reject the reliefs claimed in the original suit. It is clear that the interrogatories submitted by the plaintiff were not concerned with the reliefs claimed in the suit as it stood on the date when the application came to be filed. Hence, no fault can be found with the order of learned Jt.C.J.S.D., Pune dated 19.9.2006. 9. Today, it is an admitted fact that the undertaking, as stated above, has been filed before the Court. There is no dispute on this point. As far as informing the third parties is concerned, the copy of the agreement with the third party has been handed over to the Court for perusal. The genuineness of the said agreement ..(7).. has not been disputed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Clause-13 of the said agreement reads as under : "It is hereby declared and informed by the petitioner that in the Appeal from Order No.787 of 2005 in Civil Suit No.255 of 2004 filed heirs of the late K.Y. Tapkir, the Hon’ble High Court, Mumbai, vide order dtd. 27.9.2005 disposed of the Appeal for grant of injunction and directed the Promoter to inform the third parties regarding pendency of the said suit and that the construction shall be subject to the final decision therein, which the Promoter has hereby informed." 10. This very clause-13 in the said agreement is also reproduced in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner. Thus now the petitioner-plaintiff has the information which he was seeking. In such case, it would be open to him to take such steps as permissible in law. ..(8).. 11. In the result, petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)