Sarbjinder Singh Bhullar Alias Bittu Bhullar Vs M/S Primelink Real Estates Private Limited and Others

¶1

CR-7774-2025 (O&M)

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

-.-

¶5

CR-7774-2025 (O&M) Decided on :-02.12.2025

¶6

Sarbjinder Sing h Bhullar alias Bittu Bhullar ....Petitioner

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s Primelink R eal Estates Pvt. Ltd. and Other s ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: M r . Kanwar Abhay Singh, Advoca t e for the petitioner.

¶9

-.-

¶10

MANDEEP PANNU J.

¶11

Th i s revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/defen d ant challenging the order dated 01.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Ju n ior Division), Lud h iana, whereby the application f iled by the petitioner under O r der 11 Rule 1 CP C seeking leave to deliver i n terrogatories to the plaintiff w as dismissed. The t rial Court has observed that in t errogatories under Order 11 Ru l e 1 are part of the p re-trial discovery mechanism a n d are ordinarily resorted to prior to the commence m ent of evidence. Since the suit had already proceeded to the s t age of plaintiff’s e v idence, the Court held that allowing interrogatories at this s t age would not be p roper, particularly when the q u estions sought to be put coul d be asked during cr o ss-examination.

¶12

Le a rned counsel for the petitioner h as assailed the impugned orde r on the ground that t he trial Court has erred in takin g a narrow view of Order 11 Ru l e 1 CPC. It is argu e d that the purpose of interroga t ories is to enable a party to ob t ain admissions or m aterial facts from the opposite party and that such discovery m ay TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.03 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶13

CR-7774-2025 (O&M) - 2 -

¶14

be allowed at a n y stage with the leave of the C o urt. It is further submitted that the trial Court has incorrectly held that interroga t ories must be confined to a s t age before the com m encement of evidence, where a s the statutory provision does not expressly impo s e such restriction. Counsel ha s relied upon various judgment s to contend that in t errogatories should not be refu s ed merely because the informa t ion sought may a lso be elicited through cr o ss-examination and that w h ere interrogatories are relevant to the issues, th e ir scope cannot be curtailed by technicalities. I t is the petitioner’s submission t h at the interrogatories sought in the present case relate to khasra numbers, area, a n d the location of the suit prop e rty, matters which are central to the controver s y and necessary for the pr o per adjudication of t he suit.

¶15

Si n ce the short controversy is invo l ved in the present revision petit i on, no notice is req u ired to be issued to the respond e nts. 4. Ha v ing considered the submissio n s and having perused the orig i nal order of the tria l Court along with the pleadings , this Court finds no infirmity in the reasoning adop t ed by the learned Civil Judg e . The scheme of Order 11 C PC demonstrates t h at interrogatories constitute a p re-trial device intended to nar r ow the scope of c ontroversy before evidence is led. While it is correct that the provision does not, in express terms, prohibi t the filing of interrogatories a fter issues are fram e d, its settled purpose is to aid p reparation for trial, not to inter r upt trial proceedings or delay the recording of evid e nce. In the present case, the is s ues were framed lo n g prior to the filing of the app l ication and the matter had already been fixed for p laintiff’s evidence. The trial C ourt has recorded several dates on which the plain t iff was to produce evidence, a n d it is evident from the record t hat TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.03 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CR-7774-2025 (O&M) - 3 -

¶17

the filing of t h e application at this stage wo u ld necessarily have the effec t of stalling the tria l . The contention of the respon d ent that the application is inten d ed to delay the pro c eedings has not been satisfacto r ily rebutted by the petitioner. 5. Fu r thermore, the questions propo s ed in the interrogatories relat e to matters such as the exact area falling in various khasra numbers, the land adjoi n ing the defendants’ property, and the extent of the plaintiff’s land. These are mat t ers which can be e stablished by documentary evidence already produced on re c ord and through cr o ss-examination at the appropri a te stage. Interrogatories canno t be used as a subst i tute for cross-examination or a s a means to compel the opposite party to set out its entire case in advance. Th e trial Court has correctly obser v ed that the purpos e of Order 11 CPC is not to pe r mit fishing inquiries or to co m pel production of e v idence which can otherwise be proved during the normal cours e of trial. The reaso n ing that the questions may be asked during cross-examinatio n is valid and falls w ithin the discretion of the trial C ourt. 6. Th e judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not advance the c ase of the revisioni s t. The decision in Acharya Devi Dutta Samsekhar v. Ajit Kumar Acharya, (2016) 122 CLT 535 reiterate the g e neral principle that interrogato r ies may be permitt e d if they relate to matters in is s ue and if the information soug h t is necessary to d e termine the controversy. Tho s e judgments do not mandate t hat interrogatories must be allowed irrespective of the stage of proceedings or irrespective of t heir effect on the trial. In fact, t he applicability of those judgm e nts depends on the n ature of the interrogatories an d the stage at which they are sou g ht. In the presen t case, the interrogatories a r e neither indispensable for the determination of any issue nor sought at a stag e consistent with the object of O r der

¶18

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.03 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CR-7774-2025 (O&M) - 4 -

¶20

11 CPC. The t r ial Court has rightly held that the questions proposed can be put during cross-ex a mination and that the applicat i on, if allowed at the present st a ge, would disturb t h e orderly progress of the trial.

¶21

Th e Rajasthan High Court in Govind Narayan and Ors. v. Nagendra Nagda and Ors, 2017(4) RLW 3309 , was de a ling with interrogatories expre s sly aimed at the co r e questions in the suit, which h ad remained pending for 12 years, but even in tha t case, the Court held that inter r ogatories cannot be permitted a fter commencement of evidence when they tend to delay proceedings, and in f act dismissed the petition. The decision rein fo rces the principle that bel a ted interrogatories that disrupt the trial process are impermissible, and there f ore supports the im p ugned order rather than aiding t he petitioner. 8. Th e judgment in Bharat Industries v. Punjab National Bank, CR4280-1999 , rel i ed upon heavily by the petit i oner, also does not advance the petitioner’s cas e . There, the Court held that i n terrogatories can sometimes h elp shorten litigati o n, but that was in the conte x t of a stage before evidence h ad commenced. T h e ratio expressly contemplat e s the utility of interrogatorie s in avoiding unnec e ssary evidence, not interrupti n g evidence already underway. T he factual matrix in Bharat Industries’s cas e (supra) involved delivery of interrogatories a t the pre-evidence stage, where a s in the present case, the plaintiff’s evidence has begun and several opportunities h a ve already passed. 9. Th e applicability of these decisio n s is fact-specific, and the pre s ent case does not p r esent any exceptional circumst a nce that requires interrogatorie s to be served despi t e the advanced stage of trial. T h e nature of the interrogatories h ere relating to kha s ra numbers, areas and bound a ries, are matters which are b e tter TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.03 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CR-7774-2025 (O&M) - 5 -

¶23

established thr o ugh documentary evidence suc h as jamabandis , site plans, an d by putting questio n s during cross-examination. C ompelling the plaintiff to ans w er interrogatories o n such matters at this late stag e would amount to a fishing inq u iry rather than legitimate discovery.

¶24

Th e supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 or revisional juris d iction over such interlocutor y orders is limited to exami n ing jurisdictional e r ror, perversity, or patent illega l ity. The impugned order does not suffer from any such defect. It reflects due con s ideration of the pleadings, the law, and the purpo s e of interrogatories under Or d er 11 CPC. The trial Court has exercised its di s cretion judiciously, and no gr o und is made out to interfere w ith that discretion.

¶25

In view of the above discussion, t his Court is satisfied that the t rial Court committed no error in dismissing the app l ication filed under Order 11 Ru l e 1 CPC. The revis i on petition is accordingly dismi s sed. 12. Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶26

December 02, 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶27

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.03 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sarbjinder Singh Bhullar Alias Bittu Bhullar v. M/S Primelink Real Estates Private Limited and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarbjinder Singh Bhullar Alias Bittu Bhullar v. M/S Primelink Real Estates Private Limited and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandu Vs Gopi

Jasjeet Singh Vs Kuldeep Singh

Daljit Kaur Vs Yadwinder Kumar Sharma and Ors.

Kulwinder Singh and Another Vs Narinder Kapoor and Others

Baba Jeet Singh @ Sant Baba Jeet Singh Vs Sant Jaspal Singh

Jatinder Kumar Alias Lovely Vs Sukhjinder Pal Singh and Others