AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajes Kumar, J.
Heard Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rajesh Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondents.
This revision has been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Meerut dated 22.9.2009 by which the application of the revisionist under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "C.P.C.") has been rejected. The respondents filed a suit for ejectment of the revisionist. In the plaint, it has been alleged that the respondents are owners of the property in dispute. The revisionist filed the written statement. The evidences from both the sides have been laid and thereafter the hearing has started. The Additional District Judge, Meerut in its order stated that the hearing of the plaintiffs has been concluded and after the hearing of plaintiffs being concluded, the revisionist filed an application under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for raising certain queries and seeking reply from the plaintiffs. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected.
It appears that the application has been moved on the ground that the revisionist came to know that the land on which the shop was constructed was a Banjer land and, therefore, in view of the provision of Section 117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the land is vested to the Gaon Sabha and the plaintiffs are not owners of the land in dispute which has been let out to the revisionist. The trial court held that in the written statement the defendant has admitted that the plaintiffs are the landlords. The suit is pending since 2000. The written statement has been filed and the evidences have been laid. The argument of the plaintiffs has been concluded but just to delay the matter, the present application has been filed.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the object of Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. is to cut short the litigation. He submitted that after filing the written statement and during the course of hearing it came to the knowledge of the revisionist that the land was recorded as a Banjer land in the revenue record and, therefore, in view of the Section 117 of the Act the land was vested to the Gaon Sabha and the plaintiffs ceases to be the owners of the land in dispute and, therefore, the present application has been moved. In case, if on a query being made this factual aspect comes on record, the suit of the plaintiffs could not be maintainable. In support of the contention, he relied upon the the decision of Jammu & Kashmir, High Court in the case of Jugal Raj Gandotra and another v. Yashpal Sahni and another, reported in AIR 1999 Jammu and Kashmir21 and decision of Orissa High Court in the case of Bhakta Charan Mallik v. Nataorar Mallik and others, reported in AIR 1991 Orissa319.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order.
I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist. Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 reads as follows:
"Rule 1. Discovery by interrogatories. In any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties and such interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of such persons is required to answer:
Provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same party without an order for that purpose:
Provided also that interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral crossexamination of a witness.
Rule 2. Particular interrogatories to be submitted. On an application for leave to deliver interrogatories, the particular interrogatories proposed to be delivered shall be submitted to the Court and that 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."
It is true that the object of the rule is to enable a party to require information from his opponent for the purpose of maintaining his own case or for destroying the case of the adversary. The main object of interrogatories is to save expenses and shorten the litigation by enabling a party to obtain from his opponent information as to facts material regarding the question in dispute between them or to obtain admission of any facts which he has to prove, on any issue which is raised between them. In the present case, the written statement has been filed and the evidences have also been laid by both the parties. The suit is of 2000, which is pending for 9 years, and when the matter came up for final decision, the present application has been filed. Prima facie, it appears that the application moved by the revisionist is not bonafide. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Jugal Raj Gandotra and another v. Yashpal Sahni and another (Supra) has held that Court is to be cautious while allowing the prayer made in the application under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C.. As held by the court below the revisionist has not disputed that the plaintiffs were the landlords. In the circumstances, if the trial court has refused to allow the permission under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. it cannot be said to be unjustified.
The revision fails and is dismissed. Any observation made in the impugned order and in this order will not affect the decision of the suit.