: 1 : SD IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1284 OF 2008 SUMMONS NO.1284 OF 2008 SUMMONS NO.1284 OF 2008 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.1101 OF 1989 NO.1101 OF 1989 NO.1101 OF 1989 Padam Chandra Singhi & Anr. ...Plaintiffs V/s. Dr.Praful B. Desai & Ors. ...Defendants Mr.Bharat Joshi for the Plaintiffs. . Mr.Praveer Diwan i/b. AZB and Partners for Defendant No.1. . Mr.Kevik Sethalwal i/b. Mulla & Mulla for Defendant Nos.3 to 8. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE DATE DATE : 3RD APRIL, 2009. : 3RD APRIL, 2009. : 3RD APRIL, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. This Chamber Summons is taken out in this suit by the Plaintiffs to deliver interrogatories to the Defendant No.2 on one hand and Defendant Nos.3 to 8 on the other hand and I am deciding as to whether this step should be allowed or not. The brief background of the application is as under. 3. The Plaintiffs filed this suit for damages. It is their case that the Defendants were guilty of negligence while performing surgery on the original : 2 : Plaintiff No.2 etc. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that Defendant No.1 was the surgeon who was treating the original Plaintiff No.2. On the other hand the Defendants’ case is that the Defendant No.1 had no concern with the surgery and that the Defendant No.2 who was the surgeon who performed the surgical operation. The Defendants filed written statements and this Court framed issues long back. Pursuant to the issues, the parties were given opportunities to adduce oral and other evidence. Accordingly, the Plaintiff No.1 recorded his and his witnesses’ depositions. On the other hand, the Defendant No.1 alone entered the witness box and recorded his deposition. After the cross-examination of the Defendant No.1 was over, the other Defendants stated to the Court that they would not lead further evidence and would not enter witness box. At that stage, the Plaintiffs realized that certain factual aspects which are within the special knowledge of the Defendant No.2 should be brought on record as evidence and in order to achieve this, the previous Chamber Summons was filed seeking similar prayers. It was withdrawn when the Plaintiffs were given liberty to consider whether they would examine the Defendant No.2 as their witness. But, some how, the Plaintiffs gave up the idea of examining the : 3 : Defendant No.2 as his witness. After that the present Chamber Summons is taken out seeking answers of the Defendant No.2 and answers of Defendant Nos.3 to 8 to certain interrogatories. 4. As said above, the purpose of interrogatories taken out by the Plaintiffs is to prove certain facts and so the question is whether at this belated stage the Plaintiffs should be allowed to delivery these interrogatories to prove certain facts. The answer to this is in negative. In order to understand the purpose of the stage of discovery and inspection (Order 11 of the CPC), one has to see the overall scheme of the CPC. Order 11 i.e. the stage of discovery and inspection comes after the written statement is filed. At that stage the parties disclose their cases to each other and to the Court. The CPC at that stage allows the parties to examine the pleadings of the opposite party and gives further opportunity to the parties to delivery interrogatories which are relating to matter in question in the suit. The Court then decides as to whether such interrogatories should be allowed and should be delivered to the opposite party and after such decision is taken, the opposite party is under obligation to put their answers to the : 4 : interrogatories. Similar is the provision in respect of the documents of the parties which are relevant to the matter in dispute. After gathering the additional material besides the pleadings, the Court then embarks upon the stage of framing of issues. Order 14 of the CPC makes it clear that issues would arose when material preposition of facts or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. This contest contemplated at this stage not only include the rival pleadings of the parties but also the other material i.e. gathered through the stage of discovery and inspection. Thereafter the issues are settled. So, it is clear that the stage of discovery and inspection of documents is provided to find out as to what the issues would be between the parties. 5. The purpose of the interrogatories delivered by the Plaintiffs in this case at this stage is not to bring issues between the parties on record. It is clear from the interrogatories that the Plaintiffs are trying to adduce additional evidence in support of their case and against the case of the Defendant No.1 which he put forward through his deposition. There is one more reason why the interrogatories delivered by the Plaintiffs is impermissible. The Defendant No.2 without waiting for the order of the : 5 : Court promptly submitted even answers to the interrogatories put to him and thereby indicated that he would rather support the Plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit probably the Defendant No.2 has made certain admissions elsewhere whereby he indicated that he would rather support the Plaintiffs’ case than his original stand. In that case it is for the Plaintiffs to consider whether they should continue the suit as against the Defendant No.2. 6. The Plaintiffs are eager to get the answers put by the Defendant No.2 to the interrogatories on record without giving opportunity to the other Defendants to cross examine the Defendant No.2. This expectation of the Plaintiffs is completely unknown to the CPC. The Chamber Summons thus does not survive and deserves to be dismissed. 7. In view of the above, the Chamber Summons stands dismissed. [A.V. [A.V. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] NIRGUDE, J.] NIRGUDE, J.]