Delhi Vanaspati Syndicate vs K.C. Chawala

I.K. Kotwal, J.—This is defendant's revision petition, who in a suit for ejectment, out of which the revision petition has arisen, has been

directed by the trial Court to answer certain interrogatories delivered to him by the plaintiff in terms of Order 11, Rule 1 C.P.C. The issues were

raised in the suit by the trial Court on the pleadings of the parties, which read as under:

Whether annual income of the defendant is more than Rs. 40,000.00 and he is not entitled to protection of J. & K. Houses and Shops Rent

Control Act ?

O. P. P.

Whether the tenancy of the defendant has been terminated by the service of a legally valid notice ?

O. P. P.

The onus of these issues being on him, the plaintiff, who is respondent herein, by making an application to that effect sought to serve the

following set of interrogatories on the petitioner:

(1) What is the constitution of M/s. Delhi Vanaspati Syndicate ?

(2) Where is the head office of the defendant company ?

(3) What is the total annual income of the defendant Company from all sources within and outside the State of Jammu and Kashmir?

(4) What was the annual income of M/s. Delhi Vanaspati Syndicate from all sources for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80 ?

(5) Is it a fact that notice for ejectment was served upon the defendant on 7-2-1980 and its depot manager at Jammu ?

The trial Court, as already noticed, directed the petitioner in terms of Order 11, Rule 2 to answer these interrogatories by its order dated 22-

10-1981, hence the revision petition.

This order has been assailed on two grounds: firstly, that the interrogatories were served upon the petitioner without seeking leave of the Court;

and secondly, that these were served merely with a view to knowing those facts which constituted exclusively the evidence of the petitioner's case.

In my opinion none of the contentions raised is well founded.

As far the first contention, leave for serving interrogatories on the petitioner is implicit in the application itself that was made by the respondent in

that behalf. The Court was not supposed to serve these interrogatories on the petitioner with a direction to answer the same as an automaton. Nor

has the Court in fact done that. It has applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and permitted the respondent to serve the

interrogatories on the petitioner for being replied. The leave contemplated by Rule 1 was, therefore, not only sought from the trial court but was

also granted by it.

It is true that a party is not entitled to require its adversary to answer interrogatories, the effect whereof would be to enable it to know the facts,

which exclusively constitute the evidence of his opponent's case. But, it is equally true that it can administer interrogatories to its opponent, to

obtain admissions from him to everything that on the pleadings of the parties is material for the decision of the case, with the object of facilitating the

proof of its own case, as also saving the costs which it may otherwise have to incur on adducing evidence to prove the necessary facts. As

observed by their Lordships in Raj Narain Vs. Indira Nehru Gandhi and Another, : ""The interrogatories must have reasonably close connection

with matters in question"". The questions sought to be answered by the petitioner, there can be no manner of doubt did have such connection with

the issues raised, and if the petitioner's answer to those questions were to constitute his admissions on material facts, then the respondent need not

have adduced any evidence to prove his case. I fail to understand as to how these questions can be said to relate to facts that exclusively constitute

the evidence of the petitioner's case.

Both the grounds having failed, the revision petition also fails, which is dismissed accordingly, but in the circumstances of the case without any

order as to costs.