Allowed

Shri Paresh Nath & Ors. v. Shri A.N. Sharma & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Feb 2011CR/4911/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an order by the Additional Civil Judge allowing interrogatories without a speaking order. This Court held that Order XI of the CPC requires a speaking order to assess relevance. The petition was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the trial Court was directed to pass a proper speaking order after hearing parties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 13.8.2008 was set aside and the trial Court was directed to decide the application for interrogatories afresh by passing a speaking order after hearing both parties.

Shri Paresh Nath & Ors. Vs Shri… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Revision No.4911 of 2008(O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Civil Revision No.4911 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision: February 3, 2011

¶5

Shri Paresh Nath LR of Shri Vishwanath (since deceased) and others

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

¶8

Shri A.N.Sharma @ Gore Lal and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.Arun Palli, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Tanu Bedi, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr.D.R.Mahajan, Advocate for respondent no.1.

¶13

Mr.R.K.Sharma,Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶14

.....

¶15

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶16

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.8.2008, Annexure P10, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rajpura, vide which application, dated 26.4.2008, Annexure P5, filed by respondent-plaintiffs for directing the petitioner-defendants to answer the interrogatories, was allowed

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

¶18

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code'), learned trial Court was required to pass a speaking order that the interrogatories relate to the matter in question and that the same are not irrelevant. It has further been contended that the present

¶19

-2-

¶20

Civil Revision No.4911 of 2008(O&M)

¶21

application was filed after about ten years of institution of the suit by respondent-plaintiffs and after availing many opportunities by respondentplaintiffs to adduce evidence. Hence, only prayer made is that learned trial Court be directed to pass a speaking order on the objections filed by present petitioner to the application seeking reply to the interrogatories filed by respondent-plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of Order 11 Rules 1, 2, 6 and 7 of the Code.

¶22

On the other hand it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the interrogatories are necessary for speedy decision of the case.

¶23

Learned trial Court allowed the interrogatories filed by respondent-plaintiffs by observing as under:-

¶24

“ After hearing their respective contentions and perusing the averments of the application, reply and submissions produced by them, this Court finds that the case was going on for evidence of plaintiff, when the present application has been filed. Affidavits of other witnesses have already been produced on record and defendants have yet to cross-examine those witnesses and if they have filed reply to the interrogatories as per law in the shape of affidavit then it would have saved the time and also reduced the volume of evidence. Instead of filing reply to interrogatories as per law respondent has preferred to contest the application, which further clears that respondent also wants to prolong the matter. As such, intention of both the parties are clear only to prolong the matter by brining the present suit as if fond of litigation. Accordingly, contention raised by learned counsel for respondents referring to reply is found to be without any basis and law cited in Nishi Prem v. Javed Akhtar and others , AIR 1988, Bombay 222 is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. Accordingly, application moved by plaintiffs/applicants shall stands allowed. Respondents-defendants are ordered to file the reply to the interrogatories within fifteen days in the shape of affidavits and the case is fixed for 13.9.2008 for evidence of plaintiff with last opportunity.”

¶25

-3-

¶26

Civil Revision No.4911 of 2008(O&M)

¶27

A very perusal of the aforementioned order shows that learned trial Court has not passed a speaking order taking into consideration the various provisions of Order XI of the Code and hence the said order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶28

In view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to decide the application for answering the interrogatories filed by respondent-plaintiffs afresh by passing a speaking order, after hearing both the parties.

¶29

Disposed of accordingly.

¶30

3.2.2011

¶31

meenu

¶32

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

Shri Paresh Nath & Ors. v. Shri A.N. Sharma & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Paresh Nath & Ors. v. Shri A.N. Sharma & 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

Gurvinder Singh Vs Jit Singh etc.

Labh Singh Vs Union of India

Nirmal Singh Vs Narinder Singh & Ors.

State of Haryana Vs Tansukh

Subrati Vs State of Hy.

Mamta Vs Amritpal Singh