CR No. 7528 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 7528 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 29.11.2010 Jasbir Singh ......Petitioner Versus Malkit Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Sugreev Kapoor, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is to an order passed by learned trial Court dated 5.8.2010, whereby an application filed by the plaintiff to deliver interrogatories upon the defendant was allowed. Plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant along with his relatives, servants, helpers from interfering into the peaceful possession of the land in dispute. The plaintiff has also sought the declaration that the agreement dated 8.5.2008 in respect of the land in dispute has become redundant and infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has allowed the application to deliver the interrogatories without calling upon the defendant to file the reply to the application and thus, the order of delivery of interrogatories is in violation of the principle of natural justice. It is also argued that defendant cannot be compelled to disclose his evidence as sought by the delivery of an interrogatories. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Delhi High CR No. 7528 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Court reported as M/s AFL Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Veena Trivedi, AIR 2000 Delhi 354 . Order 11 Rule 1 of the CPC contemplates that in any suit, the defendant by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories in writing for the cross-examination of the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties. Rule 2 contemplates that on an application for leave to deliver interrogatories, the particular interrogatories proposed to be delivered shall be submitted to the Court and the Court shall decide within seven days from the day of filing of the said application. In deciding upon such application, the Court shall take into account any offer, which may be made by the party sought to be interrogated to deliver particulars, or to make admissions, or to produce documents relating to the matters in question, or any of them, and leave shall be given as to such only of the interrogatories submitted as the Court shall consider necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs. Such provisions contemplate that the interrogatories can be served relating to the matters in question, with a purpose of disposing the suit fairly or for saving costs. In State Bank of India and others Vs. S.N.Goyal, AIR 2008 SC 2594, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that parties to the suit should avail the provisions of Order 11 Rule 1, 12 and 15 and if new ground becomes available on the basis of information secured by discovery, a party can amend his pleadings and introduce new facts and grounds which were not known earlier. In Sonia Senroy Vs. Amit Senroy, AIR 1998 Bombay 302, the Court has held that the interrogatories are not meant to be confined within narrow technical limits. It should be used liberally, whenever it can shorten litigation and serve the interest of justice. In P. Balan Vs. Central CR No. 7528 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Bank of India, Calicut, AIR 2000 Kerala 24, it was held that the interrogatories are to be allowed whenever the answer to them will serve either the party in proving his case or to destroying the case of the adversary. The power is to be exercised with care and caution so that it is not abused by any party. Interrogatories have to be confined to the facts which are relevant to the matters in question in the suit. A plaint or a written statement may not sufficiently disclose the nature of dispute of the case, and to make good the deficiency, either party can serve interrogatories in writing which, when answered, would enable the Court to decide the suit without probing into the questions elaborately in the light of oral and documentary evidence. It was held to the following effect : “8. The object and purpose of serving interrogatories is to enable a party to require information from his opponent for the purpose of maintaining his own case or or destroying the case o the adversary. The answering of the interrogatories might save expenses and shorten the litigation by enabling a party to obtain from the other side information as to material facts regarding the questions in dispute or issues raised or to obtain admission of facts which the plaintiff has to prove on any issue. Answering the interrogatories might often shorten the trial proceedings and save the time of the court and parties besides saving expenses for summoning witnesses, documents and the like. As a general rule, therefore, interrogatories are to be allowed whenever the answer to them will serve either to help the party in proving his case or to destroying the case of the adversary. The power is not meant to be confined within narrow limits. It should be used liberally whenever it can shorten the litigation and serve the interest of justice. Nevertheless, the power is to be exercised with care and caution so that it is not abused by any party. Interrogatories have to be confined to the facts which are relevant to the matters in CR No. 7528 of 2010 (O&M) 4 question in the suit. A plaint or a written statement may not sufficiently disclose the nature of parties to the case, and to make good the deficiency, either party can serve interrogatories in writing which, when answered, would enable the court to decide the suit without probing into the questions elaborately in the light of oral and documentary evidence. The courts have to approach the question in a broad perspective aimed at seeing whether the grant thereof will enable fair trial and would save the cost of litigation to the parties. Of course, the possible objections specifically mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XI, C.P.C. also have to be considered. The interrogatories have to bear a reasonable close connection with the matters in question. A party is entitled to administer interrogatories to his opponents to obtain admission from him with the object of facilitating proof o his case as also to save the costs which may otherwise be incurred in adducing evidence to prove the necessary facts.” In M/s AFL Developers Pvt. Ltd. case (supra) relied upon by the petitioner, a finding was returned that the interrogatories, which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit, have to be deemed to be irrelevant notwithstanding that they might be admissible during the oral cross-examination of a witness under the Evidence Act. It was also observed that the party is not entitled, to administer interrogatories for obtaining discovery of facts which constituted exclusively the evidence of his adversary's case or title. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. It is not the case of the petitioner that the interrogatories served upon the petitioner do not relate to the matter in issue or they are frivolous and vexatious. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that answer of the interrogatories relates to evidence in the suit and, thus, petitioner CR No. 7528 of 2010 (O&M) 5 cannot be compelled to answer interrogatories. The defendant-petitioner has already filed his written statement and taken a stand relying on an agreement to sell. The interrogatories served upon the petitioner pertain to execution of the agreement, serving of a notice, reply to the notice and whether the plaintiff had Rs.20 lac on the date of execution of the sale deed and has sought information in respect of his readiness to perform the contract. The petitioner is relying upon an agreement and that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The interrogatories served relate to the said plea. If the defendant produces the documents, the necessity to prove readiness and willingness may not be required to be examined any further. Therefore, the interrogatories served are relevant for the decision of the present case. The argument that the impugned order was passed without complying with the principle of natural justice is again misconceived. A perusal of the order shows that it was passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties. I have examined the contention of the petitioner as to whether interrogatories are relevant to the matter in question, independent of the order passed by the learned trial Court. I find that the interrogatories are relevant to the matters in controversy i.e. Readiness and willingness of the defendant to perform his part of the contract. Therefore, the alleged violation of principle of natural justice has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Keeping in view the object for which the interrogatories can be served, the serving of interrogatories before framing of issues would definitely curtail the delay in decision of the suit and narrow down the CR No. 7528 of 2010 (O&M) 6 controversy between the parties. Thus, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 29.11.2010 preeti/vimal