The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi and other, AIR 1972 SC 1302, held as under: "27. Questions that may be relevant during cross- examination are not necessarily relevant as
interrogatories. The only questions that are relevant as interrogatories are those relating to "any matters in question" The interrogatories served must have reasonably close connection with "matters in question". Administering of interrogatories is to be encouraged, as it is a means of getting admissions and tends to shorten litigation. It is a valuable right of which a party should not lightly be deprived. (See 7
Ramlal Sao v. Tan Singh, AIR 1952 Nag. 650. The fact that the party has other means of proving the fact in question is not a ground for refusing interrogatories. (See Jamaitrai Bishan Sarup v. Motilal Chamaria (1960) A.C. 536.)
Orissa High Court
Smt. Santilata Dei vs Sumitra Mahakuda on 14 December, 2012
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
B.N.Mahapatra, J. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 21.09.2012 (Annexure-1) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasapalla (for short, "Election Tribunal") in I.A. No.6 of 2012 arising out of Election Dispute Case No.2 of 2012 rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner, who is 2
the returned candidate and opposite party in the election petition for grant of leave to deliver interrogatories.
2. Petitioner's case in a nut-shell is that she along with opposite party who was the election petitioner were contesting in the election for the office of Sarpanch, Rasanga Grama Panchayat. In the said election, the petitioner having polled majority of valid votes was declared elected. The election of the writ petitioner has been challenged by the opposite party on the ground of disqualification with the averments that the writ petitioner has begotten 3rd child after the cut off date. The writ petitioner entered her appearance by filing her show cause. Before commencement of trial of the election dispute, the writ petitioner filed application seeking grant of leave to deliver interrogatories on certain aspects pleaded by opposite party-election petitioner in the election petition. The said application, which was registered as I.A.No.6 of 2012, under Annexure-4, at its foot contains specific questionnaires to be answered by opposite party. However, the Election Tribunal rejected the said petition by passing the impugned order. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the purpose of making application seeking grant of leave to deliver interrogatories on certain aspects pleaded by the opposite party in the election petition is to cut the litigation short. Hence, the impugned 3
order is not sustainable in law. It is further submitted that the provisions contained in Order 11, C.P.C. nowhere mandate that a party's seeking leave to deliver interrogatories forms part of the objection/show cause. Particularly, when the law does not require the same, rejection of the application on such ground is highly unjust, illegal and outcome of non- application of mind of the Election Tribunal. Finding of the Election Tribunal that the intention of the election petitioner is not clear about the contents of interrogatories is not correct, particularly, when the application for grant of leave to serve interrogatories specifically contains the questionnaires at its foot. Concluding his argument, Mr. Rath submitted to allow the writ petition.
4. Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the election petitioner (opposite party herein) submitted that the writ petitioner filed her show cause on 07.05.2012, where she has tried to explain that she is not coming under the mischief of Section 25(v) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act for the reasons assigned in the show cause reply with regard to birth of 3rd child. Much after filing of show cause only in the month of September 2012, an application was filed under Order 11, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code for grant of leave to deliver interrogatories. On a plain reading of the petition filed under Annexure-4, i.e., interrogatories vis-à-vis the election petition under Annexure-2 and the show cause reply under Annexure-3, it reveals that the petition filed by 4
the writ petitioner has got no sanctity and has been filed only with an intention to delay the proceeding. It is further submitted that the note appended to the petition filed under Order 11 Rule 1 of CPC clearly shows that the interrogatories have got no relevancy for just decision of the case. Nothing has been averred in the show cause reply with regard to the questions to be put in the interrogatories as the same has got no relevant points to decide the election petition. Placing reliance on the proviso to Rule 1, Order 11, C.P.C., it is submitted that the intention of the writ petitioner is only to delay the proceeding which has been fortified as nothing has been put to the present opposite party when she was examined and cross-examined by the learned Election Tribunal on 22.09.2012. In the Trial Court, not a single question appended in the note under Annexure-3 has been put to her. A bare reading of the impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal would reveal that the tenor of the order though is clear in the line of judicial pronouncement and the statute, yet some observations made by him to reach the finding seem to be improper, or not necessary to reach the conclusion that the interrogatories filed by the present petitioner have got no relevance to reach at the just decision of the case. Concluding his argument, Mr. Dhal prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. On the rival factual and legal contentions of the parties, following questions fall for consideration by this Court: 5
(i) Whether the interrogatories have got any relevance for just decision of this case ?
(ii) Whether the Election Tribunal is justified to reject the application filed by the returned candidate-writ petitioner for grant of leave to deliver interrogatories ? (iii) Whether the Tribunal is justified to observe that "objection to opposite party about her disqualification raised by the petitioner is impliedly admitted by opposite party which is not the matter of controversy while dealing with the application of the writ petitioner seeking leave for delivery of interrogatories ? (iv) Whether the Tribunal has made contradictory observations in the impugned order by observing at one place of the order that "petitioner's case is clear that opposite party has three children to which the opp. Party, the present petitioner has denied" and after few lines it is further observed that "opposite party has not specifically denied to the pleadings made by the petitioner about three children of opposite party ?
6. Since question Nos.(i) and (ii) are interlinked with each other, they are dealt with together.
7. To deal with Question Nos.(i) and (ii), it is necessary to know what is contemplated under Order 11, Rule 1, CPC. Under Order 11, Rule 1, C.P.C., every party to a suit is entitled to know the nature of its opponent's case, so that it may know 6
beforehand what case it has to meet at the time of hearing. But he is not entitled to know the facts which constitute exclusively the evidence of his opponent's case, the reasons being that it would enable an unscrupulous party to tamper with his opponents witnesses, and to manufacture evidence in contradiction, and to shape his case as to defeat justice. (See Saunders vs. Jones (1877) 7 C.D. 435, Marriot vs. Chamberlain (1886) 17 Q.B.D. 154, and Benbow v. Low (1880) 16 C.D. 93, 95; Re Strachan [1895] 1 Ch. 439, 445, 447 and 448; Knapp v. Harvey (1911) 2 K.B. 726, 730).
8. The nature of a plaintiff's case is disclosed in his plaint. The nature of a defendant's case is disclosed in its written statement. But a plaint or a written statement may not sufficiently disclose the nature of a party's case, and to make good the deficiency, either party may administer interrogatories in writing to the other through the Court. Interrogatories may also be administered by a party to his opponent to obtain admissions from him to facilitate the proof of his own case. The party to whom interrogatories are administered must answer them in writing and on oath. This is called discovery by interrogatories; the party to whom the interrogatories are administered discloses by his affidavit in answer to the interrogatories the nature of his case.
9. Administering of interrogatories is to be encouraged, as it is a means of getting admissions and tends to shorten litigation. It is a valuable right of which a party should not lightly be deprived. (See 7
Ramlal Sao v. Tan Singh, AIR 1952 Nag. 650. The fact that the party has other means of proving the fact in question is not a ground for refusing interrogatories. (See Jamaitrai Bishan Sarup v. Motilal Chamaria (1960) A.C. 536.)
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi and other, AIR 1972 SC 1302, held as under: "27. Questions that may be relevant during cross- examination are not necessarily relevant as
interrogatories. The only questions that are relevant as interrogatories are those relating to "any matters in question" The interrogatories served must have reasonably close connection with "matters in question". Viewed thus, interrogatories 1 to 18 as well as 31 must be held to be irrelevant."
11. Now, it is necessary to know what are the interrogatories the petitioner wants to administer to opposite party. For better appreciation, the interrogatories which the writ petitioner wants to deliver to the election petitioner are extracted below:
"
"NOTE
(A) As to whether the election petitioner has given any objection in writing at the time of submission of nomination before the Election Officer ?
(B) As to whether the particulars with regard to the number of children provided in the election petition under paragraph-4 finds place in the written objection filed by the election petitioner before the Election Officer at the time of
nomination ?
8
(C) If the election petitioner is a voter of Rasanga Gram Panchayat ? If so, what is the Sl.No. and relative ward No. ?
(D) If the election petitioner has any dues with the Gram Panchayat or has any subsisting contract with the Gram Panchayat as well as is a defaulter of any loan from any Cooperative Society ?
(E) If the election petitioner has herself signed the verification as well as the affidavit at the time of filing the election petition ?"
12. In order to find out whether the interrogatories have reasonably close connection with the matter in question, we have to gather from the election petition as to what is the matter in question in the election petition.
Perusal of the election petition reveals that the same has been filed on the ground that the writ petitioner, who is the returned candidate has been blessed with three children. The first son namely, Nihar Ranjan Mohanty was born on 06.07.1987, the second son namely, Tushar Ranjan Mohanty was born on 22.06.1991 and the third one is the daughter namely, Sonali Mohanty, who was born on 30.07.1995. The birth of these three children was entered in the Birth Register maintained at Gania C.H.C. With these pleadings, the election petitioner challenges the election of the returned candidate as Sarpanch on the ground that she is disqualified under Section 25(v) of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act. The returned candidate in her show cause filed on 9
07.05.2012 tried to explain about her third child. In paragraph-4 of the show cause, it is contended that opposite party would like to answer the only point whether she has got more than two natural born children. According to the writ petitioner, Section 25(v) of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act is not applicable for disqualification of her membership as because she gave birth only two children, i.e., one son namely, Tusar Ranjan Mohanty and one daughter namely, Sonali Mohanty, who are her natural born children. She admitted that the husband of the returned candidate namely, Nabaghana Mohanty had married previously to one Anjana Mohanty, D/o. Harihar Mohanty in a village under Kanpur Police Station, Dist: Cuttack and out of their wedlock one son namely, Nihar Ranjan Mohanty was born and after the death of his first wife he again married to opposite party who blessed with two children. Therefore, mischief of Section 25(v) of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act is not attracted in her case. Therefore, she is not disqualified under Section 25(v) of the G.P. Act.
13. Now, it is to be examined with reference to the case of both the parties whether the interrogatories have reasonably close connection with the matters in question. All the interrogatories (A) to (E) are not relevant to the matters in question. To adjudicate the matters in question, answer to interrogatories (A) and (B) hardly matters. Similarly, whether the election petitioner is a voter of Rasanga G.P. and if so, what 10
is her SL.No. and Ward No. is nothing to do with the matter in question. Therefore, interrogatory 'C' has no relevance to the matter in question. Similarly whether the election petitioner has any dues with the Grama Panchayat or has any subsisting contract with the Grama Panchayat or is a defaulter of any loan from any Cooperative Society has nothing to do with the matter in question. Thus, interrogatory 'D' is not relevant. So far interrogatory 'E' is concerned, the said interrogatory is not relevant to the matter in question.
14. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the interrogatories have no relevancy for just decision of this case and the Tribunal is justified to reject the application filed by the returned candidate-writ petitioner seeking leave of the Court to deliver interrogatories to the election petitioner.
15. Since question Nos.(iii) and (iv) are interlinked with each other, they are dealt with together.
To deal with questions No.(iii) and (iv), it is necessary to extract here the relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
"....Perused the case and on perusal it is found that, in the Election Misc. Case both the petitioner & O.P. have filed petition & objection respectively. The petitioner has filed this Misc. Case challenging the election of the O.P. on the ground of her dis- qualification being she is the mother of three children. The O.P. filed her show-cause objecting the 11
plea of the petitioner. In the present position, the O.P. has asked for interrogatories with the question containing to objection made by petitioner regarding disqualification of O.P. whereas the present petitioner has not specifically denied to this effect in her show-cause. Hence, the objection to O.P. about her disqualification raised by the petitioner is impliedly admitted by O.P. which is not matter of controversy. Interrogatories can be asked for by either party if petition or written statement show cause may not sufficiently disclose the nature of party's case. The petitioner case is clear that the O.P. has three children to which O.P. present petitioner has denied. The O.P. has admitted in the show cause that, O.P. has two children. So, in the instant case the petition itself sufficiently discloses the nature of petitioner's case. The O.P. in the present petition the petitioner. The election Misc. Case objected on the ground stated therein that the question are irrelevant and not maintainable by law and contended that interrogatories must relate to matters in question. It is meant matter in
controversy and the matter in controversy would mean that, which has been alleged by the party and traversed by other party. The O.P. has not
specifically denied to the pleadings made by the petitioner about the three children by the O.P., whereas the O.P. has sought questions relating to such objection by the petitioner at the time of submission of nomination paper before the Election Officer."
(Underlined for emphasis)
16. So far question no.(iii) is concerned the emphasized portion shows that the election tribunal has pre-judged the issue involved in the election petition which is certainly unwarranted while dealing with the petition of the returned candidate seeking leave of the Court to deliver interrogatories to the election petitioner.
12
17. So far question No.(iv) is concerned, the second and third emphasized portions in the impugned order extracted above clearly show that the observations are contradictory. The Election Tribunal is therefore, not justified to make such contradictory observations. Further such observations are irrelevant for the purpose of adjudicating the issue involved in I.A. No.6 of 2012 arising out Election Dispute No.2 of 2012.
18. In view of the above, the Tribunal is directed not to be influenced by the said observations made in the impugned order while deciding the election dispute in Election Dispute Case No.2 of 2012.
19. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation and direction.
No order as to costs.
.............................
B.N. Mahapatra,J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 14th December, 2012/skj
No comments:
Post a Comment