Wilt petition under Article 226 challenged orders dismissing an application to serve interrogatories to investigate if the plaintiff is a money lender and for collecting evidence regarding his capacity to execute a sale agreement.
Petition dismissed in limine; liberty granted to ask interrogatory aspects during cross-examination.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/5TH KARTHIKA, 1938
OP(C).No. 2673 of 2016 (O)
IA.NOS.481/488/2016 IN OS. 57/2009 OF SUB COURT, KOYILANDY DTD.30.9.2016
PETITIONER(S):
A.T.ALIKUTTY, S/O.ABDUL KADER HAJI, AGED 55 YEARS, SHAMNAM HOUSE, PUTHIYANGADI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
1. C.MUNEER, S/O.MOOSA, AGED 36 YEARS, SAKEENA MANZIL, NADUKTHAZHA VILLAGE, PUTHOOR DESOM, VADAKARA-673 101.
2. P.ABHIJITH KUMAR, S/O.GOVINDAN, PEEDIYAKKAL HOUSE, PANTHALAYAM AMSOM, KOVILKANDY DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK-673 305.
3. POKER,
S/O.ABDULLA, VENGODAN VEETTIL, KAVILUMPARA.P.O., VADAKARA TALUK-673 101.
4. P.HAMEED, S/O.HAMSA, PALAKKAL HOUSE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 507.
5. PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.POKKEN, VISHNU BHAVAN CHOBAL, VADAKARA-673 101.
msv/
-2-
-2-
OP(C).No. 2673 of 2016 (O)
6. RAJAN,
7. ALIKOYA,
8. ABDUL HAMEED,
9. KUNHAYISHA UMMA,
AGED 69 YEARS, D/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, HIRA HOUSE, CHENGOTTUKAVU VILLAGE, MELUR DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK-673 305.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
OP(C).No. 2673 of 2016 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 57 OF 2009.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN O.S.57 OF 2009.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SEEKING TO SERVE INTERROGATORIES ON 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.481/2016. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.488/2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
msv/
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ==================== O.P.(C). No.2673 of 2016
===========================
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2016
JUDGMENT
This is an application filed by the petitioner challenging
Exts.P5 and P6 orders passed by the court below under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
O.P.(C). No.2673 of 2016 - 2-
petition filed directing the plaintiff to answer the interrogatories produced along with Ext.P3 and also remove the case from the list till the application filed has been disposed of as I.A.488 of 2016. The 1st respondent filed Ext.P4 objection to the same. The court below by Ext.P5 order dismissed the application I.A.481 of 2016 and also dismissed I.A.488 of 2016 by Ext.P6 order. This is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition.
O.P.(C). No.2673 of 2016 - 3-
court below.
be answered by serving interrogatory and the questions framed in Ext.P3 is as follows:-
2.If so give details of the same and what is the income and assets shown by the plaintiff in the declaration Form, filed before the Election Commission.
O.P.(C). No.2673 of 2016 - 4-
and monetary relief and if so, what are the details of the above suit including the case number, date, name of the court and present stage of the case etc.
case can be served on the party from whom the answer is expected, so that the questions of that nature can be avoided at the time of cross examination and court can rely on the admissions if any obtained by serving interrogatories. But that was not intended to conduct a roving enquiry regarding for the purpose of collection of evidence as has been done in this petition. He had
no specific case as to whether he had filed any suit against any person for similar relief and what happened to that case etc. Instead he wanted to conduct a roving enquiry by serving interrogatories which are not confined to certain particular facts alone which is not the object of the Order II Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. Further, these questions can be asked to the plaintiff, when he is in the box and if they have got any evidence regarding this aspect, those things can also be produced before that court, if they are sure about the conduct of the petitioner of doing certain
O.P.(C). No.2673 of 2016 - 5-
things mentioned in the questions now sought to be answered. So under such circumstances, the court below was perfectly justified in passing Ext.P5 order dismissing the application as the court has come to the conclusion that those answers are not necessary for the purpose of adjudicating the issue in the case. But however it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to elicit these aspects at the time when the plaintiff is in box if he feels that those matters are also relevant for the purpose of proving the capacity of the plaintiff to pay the amount and also his conduct and to prove his defence that he is a money lender and it is his usual practice of getting such documents and filing such suits. So with the above liberty this petition is dismissed as in limine.
Registry is directed to communicate this judgment to the concerned court immediately.
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
SKV
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order dismissing the application to serve interrogatories for discovering whether the plaintiff is a money lender or has filed similar suits.
Whether the framed interrogatories serve a specific fact required for adjudication or amount to a roving enquiry under Order XI Rule 1 CPC.
Whether the petitioner is at liberty to question the plaintiff on these aspects during the cross-examination or cross examination in the trial court.
A.T.Alikutty
C.Muneer
P.Abhiجith Kumar
Poker
P.Hameed
Rajan
K. Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
