Petitioner filed petition challenging relevance of interrogatories served on defendant in ongoing suit regarding property title. Court affirmed trial court's finding of relevance. Petition dismissed.
Petition dismissed; order directing reply to interrogatories to be given within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 414/2019
RAJEEV SHARMA
..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Paritosh Budhiraja and Ms.Surabhi Maheshwari, Advs.
versus
RAKESH SHARMA & ORS
..... Respondent
Through : None
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
O R D E R % 14.05.2019 CM APPL.No. 11496/2019
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 414/2019 & CM APPL.No.11495/2019
Admittedly the respondent has preferred a suit for declaration etc. against the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 in respect of suit property. There is a categorical admission of the petitioner herein the funds for the purchase of the subject property were transferred by respondent No.1 and the petitioner has purchased the said property for respondent No.1 as the respondent No.1 was residing in United Kingdom. It is further alleged since the project of respondents No.2 and 3 was marred by delay and since the respondent No.1 was eager to sell the said property and as he was unable to find a good buyer, the respondent No.1 offered the
petitioner herein to retain the suit property for his own self and repay the plaintiff Rs.1,52,000/-. It is submitted the petitioner has paid the money to plaintiff during his visits to India from United Kingdom. In these facts, the plaintiff wished to serve the following interrogatories:-
A. Whether the defendant No.3 has got executed all the title documents/transfer documents pertaining to the property in question i.e Property bearing No. Unit N0. 915, Kirti Shikhar Building, Janakpuri, Delhi in his favour from the defendant No. 1 & 2.
B. What are the complete/entire details and nature of the aforesaid title documents/transfer documents including site plan pertaining to the property in question i.e Property bearing No. Unit N0. 915, Kirti Shikhar Building, Janakpuri, Delhi, which have been executed in favour of the defendant No.3.
C. Who is in possession of all the aforesaid title documents/transfer documents including site plan etc. pertaining to the property in question i.e Property bearing No. Unit N0. 915, Kirti Shildiar Building, Janakpuri, Delhi and supply/furnish the same on record.
(All the aforesaid interrogatories to be answered by defendant no.3).
Considering the contentions raised in the suit as also in the written statement, the learned trial court had found the interrogatories to be relevant and I do not differ from its opinion. Hence I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. Reply to the interrogatories be given within four weeks from today. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
MAY 14, 2019
VLD
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court was correct in finding the served interrogatories to be relevant.
RAJEEV SHARMA
RAKESH SHARMA & ORS
YOGESH KHANNA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
