Interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit, have to be deemed to be 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, Reference in this regards can be made from Supreme Court decision in Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi. MANU/SC/0366/1972 : AIR 1972 SC. 1302, where it was observed:-
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 irrelevant,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided On: 15.05.2000
Appellants: M/s. AFL Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Vs.
Respondent: Smt. Veena Trivedi
Vs.
Respondent: Smt. Veena Trivedi
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:S.K. Agarwal , J.
Citation: AIR2000Delhi354
1. This is an application under Order XI, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC), filed by the defendant, praying for directions, to plaintiff No. 1, to answer the interrogatories served on him with IA 2729/96. The plaintiff has filed reply opposing the application. Facts necessary for disposal of the above application briefly are: that the plaintiffs filed the suit against the applicant/defendant for perpetual and mandatory injunction, restraining the defendant, her employees, agents, servants etc. from in any manner interfering or causing obstruction in the ingress to and egress from the first floor of the premises No. B-25, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi (for short suit property), as well as for mandatory injunction for directing the defendant to remove iron gates from the space, leading from the ground floor to the first floor of the suit premises. The applicant/defendant filed written statement pleading therein that in the garb of perpetual injunction the plaintiffs are seeking relief of possession; that plaintiff No. 1 is a sham legal entity and (sic) a front to violate and defeat fiscal law and that this company was a proprietary concern of one Mr. R.C. Puri. Reply to the plaintiffs' applications under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC were also filed. The applicant/defendant has also filed a suit against the plaintiff No. 1 herein (Suit No. 2953/95) for recession of contract dated 13th April, 1992, in respect of the suit property, for damages and for permanent injunction. These suits are being tried together.
2. Applications for grant of interim relief were filed by both the parties in the said suit. This Court by a detailed order dated 6th May, 1997, allowed the plaintiff No. 1 to take possession of the first floor of the suit premises subject to his depositing Rs. 35 lacs in the Court, and they were permitted to carry out repairs and furnishing of the first floor of the suit premises. The sum of Rs. 35 lacs were ordered to be released to the defendant against security. It was further ordered that the amount of Rs. 35 lacs would liable to be refunded by the applicant/defendant to the plaintiffs in the eventuality of the suit being dismissed and subject to plaintiff No. 2 vacating the first floor for the suit premises.
3. On 18th March, 1996 applicant/defendant filed an application under Order 11, Rules 1 and 2, CPC seeking leave to deliver interrogatories to plaintiff No. 1. Application was allowed and the plaintiff No. 1 was directed to answer the interrogatories @ page-Del355
under Order 11, Rule 8, CPC. It was observed that the interrogatories relate to the matter in question in the suit. In reply to the interrogatories, Director of the plaintiff No. 1, Mr. S.S. Rawat filed an affidavit on 4th May. 1999. In the reply-affidavit it was inter alia claimed that the interrogatories Nos. 6 to 14 were irrelevant. Thereafter, the applicant/defendant filed a contempt petition (CCP 94/99) urging therein, that a finding was already recorded, by the Court to the effect that the interrogatories relate to the matter in question in the suit, therefore, it was not open to the plaintiff No. 1 to disobey and decline to answer to the aforesaid interrogatories on the ground that the same are not relevant. It was prayed that the plaintiff No. 1 by affronting the order dated 15-1-1999, had committed contempt of this Court. However, the contempt petition was dismissed on 11-10-99.
4. Now above noted application under Order XI, Rule 11, CPC has been filed by the applicant/defendant praying for directions to the plaintiff No. 1 to answer the interrogatories already served on him. The plaintiff No. 1 has filed the reply opposing this application. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record. Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant argued that on 15-1-1999, when his I.A. 2729/96 was allowed and leave was granted to serve the interrogatories, a finding was recorded to the effect that the interrogatories relate to the matters in question in the suit, therefore, it is not open to the plaintiff No. 1 to refuse to answer the interrogatories, on the ground that the same are not relevant.
5. Perusal of the Order XI, Rules 2, 6 and 7, CPC reveal that the objections with regard to the relevancy of interrogatories can be raised at three different stages. Under Rule 2, interrogatories can be delivered with leave of the Court, which should be granted when the interrogatories, which are sought to be served are necessary for disposing of the suit, fairly or for saving costs. The order granting leave to serve interrogatories, certainly does not preclude the opposite party from raising objection to answer any interrogatory, on the ground that the same is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide. for the purposes of the suit or that the matters inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage or on the ground of privilege or any other ground, as provided under Rules 6 and 7, CPC. The interrogatories can be set aside on the ground that they have been exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously. These can be struck out on the ground that they are prolix or unnecessary or superfluous, oppressive or scandalous. Thus these rules clearly show that even after leave to serve the interrogatories is granted, objections with regard to relevancy of interrogatories can be raised on the ground mentioned in these rules. There is some overlapping between these two rules. The contention of the applicant/defendant that the opposite party cannot object or refuse to answer the interrogatories once leave to serve the interrogatories is granted by the Court, with the observation, that the interrogatories relate to the matters in question in the suit is not sustainable. While granting leave to serve the interrogatories the Court is required to examine the interrogatories broadly to find out whether the same relate to any matter in question in the suit. It does not in any way affect the right of any party called upon to answer the interrogatories to object to the same as provided under the rules.
6. Next it was argued that the interrogatory Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 are relevant and necessary and, therefore, plaintiff No. 1 should be ordered to answer/further answer these interrogatories, (sic) Rule 11, CPC.
7. The main object of interrogatories is only to save expense by enabling a party to obtain from his opponent information as to the facts material to the question in dispute between them and to obtain admissions of facts which he has to prove on any issue which is raised in the suit. However, 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. Whether the interrogatory is material or not can be tested only with reference to the pleadings and the issues involved and the stage of the suit. It is only under Order XI, Rule 11. CPC that the Court has to decide whether the party must be ordered to answer or further answer the interrogatory already served on him. In the absence of an order under this rule, no action can be taken against the defaulting party. An order granting leave under Order XI Rule 11 to deliver the interrogatories @page-Del356
does not amount to an order under this rule. This necessarily leads to the examination of interrogatories served and the answers provided or the objections raised.
8. In query No. 6 it has been asked whether R.C. Puri was dealing with the defendant in respect of development and construction of basement, ground floor, first floor and the second floor of the suit premises, in the matter of alleged collaboration agreements dt. 31-3-92 and 12-4-92 (sic) that on 15-1-1999. It may be mentioned here that at the time of hearing of contempt petition referred to above, Mr. S.S. Rawat, Director of the plaintiff-company had appeared in the Court and stated that Mr. R.C. Puri was neither a consultant nor a director of the plaintiff company. He had signed the agreements only as a witness. Thus there is no necessity of any further answer to this query at this stage.
9. In queries 7, 8 and 9, it has been asked whether prior to the collaboration agreement dated 12-4-1992 there existed a 2-1/2 storey building on the suit plot and whether the same had to be demolished by M/s. Das Trading and Holdings Pvt. Ltd. under another agreement dated 31-3-1992 and that they commenced demolition as on 11-6-1992. The dispute is with respect to first floor of the suit premises. Rival contentions have been dealt with in detail in the order dated 6-5-1997, when on deposit of Rs. 35 lacs, (by?) plaintiff No. 1 the possession of the first floor was given to the plaintiffs and the defendant removed the iron gate. The query whether a 2-1/2 storey building existed earlier or not, is not relevant at this stage, vis-à-vis the issues involved in the suit. Further M/s. Das Trading and Holdings Pvt. Ltd. is not a party to the suit. Therefore, the question whether there was any similar agreement dated 31-3-1992 under which the demolition was carried out or the date of commencement of demolition is also not relevant at this stage.
10. In query No. 10 it has been asked whether ground floor roof was not developed by M/s. AFL Developers till July, 1994. In reply, it is stated that the ground floor roof was not developed and constructed by plaintiff No. 1. Therefore, the question of development of the ground floor roof by the plaintiff No. 1, did not arise.
11. In query No. 12 it has been asked whether the construction and completion of first floor and second floor was left and jettisoned by plaintiff No. 1. In reply, it is stated that the first and second floor of the suit premises was constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plans. No further answers are called for from the plaintiff No. 1, in this regard at this stage.
12. In query No. 13 it has been asked that what was the annual turnover of plaintiff No. 1 in the years 1991 to 1993-94 as per P and L account filed with the Registrar of Companies and the query No. 14 is with respect to the turnover of M/s. Das Trading and Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The turnover of company is not a fact in Issue, therefore, it is not material at this stage. As observed earlier M/s. Das Trading and Holding Company, is not a party to the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff No. 1 cannot be compelled to answer the queries in respect to this company. It is in the nature of fishing enquiry. All these questions may be permitted to be asked at the time of cross-examination.
13. Interrogatories which do not relate to ay matters in question in the suit, have to be deemed to be 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, Reference in this regards can be made from Supreme Court decision in Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi. MANU/SC/0366/1972: AIR 1972 SC. 1302, where it was observed:-
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 irrelevant,(Emphasis supplied)
14. In view of the above I am of the considered view that under Order XI, Rule 11, CPC. plaintiff No. 1 cannot be directed to answer or further answer the interrogatories served on him. The interrogatories are in the nature of fishing enquiry and these questions can at best be asked during the cross-examination, and the same are not relevant to the matters in question. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the application or the same is dismissed. No order as to the costs.
Application dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment