Dismissed

Rajiv Kumar Agrwal and Anr. v. Rabindra Narayan Agrwal and Ors.

Patna HC24 Jun 2013CWJC/18542/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an order granting leave for interrogatories in a partition suit was withdrawn by petitioners after the Court observed they should approach the trial Court first objecting under Order XI Rule 6 and 7 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the trial Court to raise objection under Order XI Rule 6 CPC.

Rajiv Kumar Agrwal and Anr. Vs Rabindra Narayan Agrwal and… — Property and Title | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18542 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== 1. Rajiv Kumar Agrwal son of Late Arvind Kumar Agrwal 2. Anajn Kumar Agrwal, minor son of Rajiv Kumar Agrwal, under the guardianships of his father Rajiv Kumar Agrwal, All residents of Mauza Mokimpur (Mungeriaganj), P.S. & Distt.Begusarai.

¶4

.... Plaintiff .... Petitioners Versus

¶5

Rabindra Narayan Agrwal, son of Bishundeo Narayan Agrwal 2. Jitendra Narayan Agrwal, son of Rabindra Narayan Agrwal 3. Abha Rani, D/o Rabindra Narayan Agrwal 4. Meenakshi Kumari, D/o Rabindra Narayan Agrwal All residents of Mauza Mokimpur (Mungeriaganj), P.S. and Dist.Begusarai

¶6

Defendants 1^st set/Respondents 1^st set. 5. Smt. Indira Rani, D/o Late Bishundeo Narayan Agrwal and wife of Rai Abhay Krishna, resident of Anand Bagh, Patna City, Patna. Defendant 2^nd set/Respondent 2^nd set. 6. Smt. Shobha Rani Agrwal, W/o Late Arvind Kumar Agrwal 7. Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, son of Late Arvind Narayan Agrwal, Both (6) and (7) are residents of Mauza Mokimpur (Mungeriaganj), P.S. & Dist.- Begusarai. 8. Mirdula Rani, D/o Late Arvind Narayan Agrwal, resident of Mouza Mokimpur (Mungeriaganj), P.S. & Dist.- Begusarai

¶7

Defendant 3^rd set/Respondent 3^rd set. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Dhruvnarayan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ambuj Nayan Choubey For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Mrigank Mauli ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

¶8

ORAL ORDER

¶9

4 24-06-2013 This application has been field for quashing the order dated 24.08.2012 passed by learned Sub-ordinate Judge, 5^th , Begusarai in Title Partition Suit No. 188 of 97 (Annexure-1) whereby he has allowed a petition dated 18.11.2010 filed under O. XI R. 1 and 2

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.18542 of 2012 (4) dt.24-06-2013 2/4

¶11

seeking discovery by interrogatories.

¶12

Mr. Dhruv Narayan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that the Court below granted leave without any application of judicial mind and without duly considering the rejoinder filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, who are the petitioners in the present application.

¶13

He has further submitted that the particulars of interrogatories submitted by the defendant / respondents are irrelevant, unnecessary, and scandalous. For these reasons, he submits, the leave granted by the Court vide the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

¶14

He has submitted that if the petitioners are made to answer the interrogatories, it would frustrate the very purpose of the provisions of Order XI, for more than three hundred questions form part of such interrogatories which are vexatious and would cause unnecessary delay in conclusion of the trial.

¶15

Mr. Ambuj Nayan Choubey and Mrigank Mauli, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, have contended that present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is premature in as much as the petitioners have approached this Court in extraordinary jurisdiction without

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.18542 of 2012 (4) dt.24-06-2013 3/4

¶17

availing the statutory remedy available under Order XI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They have submitted that the petitioners herein could have objected answering to the interrogatories on the grounds that they were scandalous, irrelevant or not bona fide for the purpose of the suit or on other grounds as available in the said Rule. They have submitted that Rule-7 confers jurisdiction on the trial Court to set aside any interrogatories on the ground that they have been exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously or may strike them out on the ground of being unnecessary or scandalous.

¶18

Mr. Dhruv Narayan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in reply has placed reliance on a judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Rajasthan Golden Transport Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. V. Avon footwear Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported in A.I.R. 1986 Delhi 286 to contend that leave should not have been granted with respect to such interrogatories which were fishing in nature.

¶19

Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that the petitioners have remedy under Order XI Rule 6 to object to answering any interrogatories on the grounds mentioned therein and learned trial Court has jurisdiction to set aside and strike out interrogatories as provided under Order XI Rule 7 on

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.18542 of 2012 (4) dt.24-06-2013 4/4

¶21

such grounds.

¶22

In view of the above, learned senior counsel at this stage seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the application so as to approach the learned trial Court for raising objection under Order XI Rule 6. If such objection is field before the court below within ten days from today, the learned trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate order on such objection preferably within a period of three weeks thereafter.

¶23

This application is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty and observation as mentioned above.

¶24

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)

¶25

Saif/-

Rajiv Kumar Agrwal and Anr. v. Rabindra Narayan Agrwal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Kumar Agrwal and Anr. v. Rabindra Narayan Agrwal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badari Ram Vs Bacha Pandey and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Krishna Murari Prasad and Ors.

Shyam Kumar Singh Vs Ram Kumar Singh

Jamila Bibi Vs Husain Ara Begam and Ors.

Suresh Prasad Yadav Vs Bishundeo Rai and Anr.

Smt. Sharda Devi Vs Chandra Prakash Gupta and Ors.