Durga Prasad and Others vs Smt. Tulsa Devi

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners against the order dated 12.12.2008 by which the prescribed authority has rejected the application filed by the Petitioners u/s 34(i) of the Act for giving reply to the interrogatories by the Respondent.

This writ petition has been filed in the year 2008 and has been pending in the Court for the last about three years. The Court Below while rejecting the application for interrogatories has come to the conclusion that the Petitioners want to delay the proceedings.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that intention of the Petitioners is not to delay the proceedings and he has relied upon the judgment rendered in Sohan Singh v. Maiku Lal reported in 1975 A.L.R. 528 wherein the Court has held that:

The object of the Act of providing summary remedy can be achieved by finding that the word ''discovery'' used in Section 34(1)(d) of the new Act should not be given a restricted or narrow meaning and that it should not be confined to discovery by documents alone. It is needless to point out that the purpose of providing the procedure of discovery by interrogatories is to shorten the litigation and to save the expenses. It enables a party to obtain an admission from his opponent, which makes his burden of proof easier. Looking at the scheme of the Act and taking the context in which Section 34(1)(d) has been enacted the discovery provided for by Section 34(1)(d) has to be given a wider meaning including discovery by interrogatories as well. The prescribed authority, however, has ample power under Order XI CPC to strike of irrelevant of useless questions which may not have been any bearing on the controversy involved in the case.

The Court in the aforesaid case of Sohan Singh (supra) dealt with the scope of Section 34 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 as under:

The question which arises for decision in the present case is about the scope and ambit of Section 34(1)(d) of the new Act. Section 34(1)(d) reads as under:

The District Magistrate, the prescribed authority or any appellate authority shall for the purpose of holding any inquiry or hearing any appeal under this Act have the same power as are vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when trying a suit in respect of the following matters namely:

(d) requiring the discovery and production of documents.

The Court in the Case of Sohan Singh (supra) while dealing with the scheme of the Act has held that:

The scheme of the Act indicates that the legislature intended to provide for a summary and expeditious remedy given by the Act. The object of the Act of providing summary remedy can be achieved by finding that word ''discovery'' used in Section 34(1)(d) of the new Act should not be given a restricted or narrow meaning and that it should not be confined to discovery by documents alone. It is needless to point out that the purpose of providing the procedure of discovery by interrogatories is to shorten the litigation and to save the expenses. It enables a party to obtain an admission from his opponent, which makes his burden of proof easier. Looking at the scheme of the Act and taking the context in which Section 34(1)(d) has been enacted. I find that the discovery provided for by Section 34(1)(d) of the new Act has to be given a wider meaning including discovery by interrogatories as well.

Two other provisions which have bearing on the controversy in issue, are contained in Rule 22 and 23 of the Rules framed under the new Act.

Order II of the CPC deals with the discovery and inspection. After the issue have been framed each party is required to prove his case. For the purpose of proving his case each party has been made entitled by Order II of the CPC to serve questions on the adversary for the purpose of knowing their answers from him. This has been permitted by the CPC as the facts required to be answered are within the exclusive knowledge of the other party. Service of questions by a party on his adversary is known as discovery by interrogatories is dealt in Rules 1 to 11 of Order XI of the Civil Procedure. There is another kind of discovery which is with regard to documents. This is known as discovery of documents. Discovery of documents, has been provided in Rule 12 of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure. Procedure to discover documents has been, thereafter, provided in various other rules of the same Order. Discovery of documents is followed by inspection and production of documents which has also been dealt with in this very Order. The net result of the above discussion is that Order XI of the CPC deals with two types of discoveries; one discovery by interrogatories, and the other discovery by documents.

As stated earlier this writ petition is pending for the last three years. Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that he has no objection to the interrogatory application being replied to, hence case law cited by the Petitioners may not be considered by this Court at this stage.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the court below committed an error in not allowing the interrogatories by which the proceedings could have been shortened, the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the prescribed authority for filing reply to the interrogatories by the landlord. The counsel for the Respondents may reply to the interrogatory application within a period of two weeks and the case shall be thereafter decided by the prescribed authority within a further period of two weeks in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order.

Ordered accordingly. No orders as to costs.