Badhri Narayanan vs Dhandapani

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The Petitioner is the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 385 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi. The Respondents are the Defendants. The said Suit has been filed for bare injunction to restrain the Defendants and their men in any manner interfering with the alleged peaceful possession of the Plaintiff. On appearance, the Respondents/Defendants filed their Written Statement. Thereafter appropriate issues were framed and the Suit was also ready for trial. The Suit was pending from the year 2005 onwards.

In the year 2010, the Petitioner filed an Application in I.A. No. 3114 of 2010, under Order 9, Rule 1, C.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to furnish interrogatories to the 2nd Defendant seeking his response to the same. The said Petition was dismissed by the Trial Court. Challenging the same, the Petitioner is before this Court with this Revision Petition.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondents and also perused the records carefully.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that it is absolutely necessary in law that the Petitioner has to issue interrogatories to the 2nd Respondent so as to identify the facts which are in dispute. But, the learned Counsel for the Respondents would submit that the Petition before the Trial Court was rightly dismissed. According to him, if not on any other ground, at least on the ground that the interrogatories were not appended to the Petition. The Trial Court was right in dismissing the Petition.

I have considered the above submission.

Of course, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is right in his submission that under Order 11, Rule 1 of CPC, he is entitled to seek leave to deliver interrogatories to the Defendants. But, at the same time, according to Order 11, Rule 2 of CPC, the interrogatories proposed to be delivered shall be submitted to the Court and that the Court shall decide within seven days from the date of filing of such Application. While deciding the same, 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.

A perusal of the above provision would manifestly clear that the interrogatories should have been submitted to the Trial Court and only thereafter the Court will consider the same and grant leave. In this case, the interrogatories were not submitted along with the Petition before the Trial Court. Thus, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, the request of the Petitioner cannot be acceded. Thus, I do not find any merit in the Revision.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.