High Court · 2024

iu"ut ss Ylars, occ: Housewife' i{:=N:7i-ieo, LEnii. Bazar, Hvderab ad - 27' 4 Smt. Kamala Soni, Wo' Late Ghanshyamdas Soni - f;;'.J;b"ri 55 vears, occ: Housewife hi;."H. t',i;.;-?:iso, E"i.i" Bazar, Hvderabad -27 5 Smt. Privanka Mundada, D/o' late G. hanshyamdas Soni' aoed abbut 30 Years, Occ: Housewle' ffi i-p-rIir'rtJo's'naitt't9;93Y,ft EX,1ifii,'iT;t'ia Chikali laYout Ntsai east

6. Miss Payal Soni, D/o' late Gtanshyamdas Soni' ' aO6ut 27 iears, Occ: Student' Ffi .-fu. +-zlzgo,'esimii a azar' Hv&rabad - 27 "oeU 7 Smt. Nirmala Phafat, D/o Late Purshottamdas Soni' ' ;.ei';il] so Y"ao, occ: Housewife' ffiJ]ni r.r.. 5-ib#, bnappat Bazar' Hvderabad 8 Smt. Meena Damani, D/o Late Purshoftamdas Soni' "' ;;A';bdi 50 Yea's, occ' Housewife' ii.'. Hiixo.ollndumati Apartments' )nJno"r, OPP Gokhale School' 3'riil'i'"]i'n-.j".,'a,-'a;ii,aiwest,Mumbai4oooe2 Respondents Petition under Articre 227 0f rhe constitution of rndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds fired herein, the High court may be preased to a'ow the present civir revision petition thereby setting aside the impugned orderdated 11 January 2024 passed in rA No.514 0f 2023in os No.10g of 2023 by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, CCC, Ftyderabad. For the Petitioner : Sri Aadesh Varma, Advocate For the Respondents: Sri T. Sharath, Advocate The Court made the following: ORDER ,> HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMT NARAYANA ALISHETTY CTVIL REVISION PETITION No .1208 of 2024 ORDER: This revision petition is frled aggrieved by the order dated 11.01.2O24 passed by the XXV Additional Chief Judge' City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A-No'514 of 2O23 rn O.S.No.109 of 2023.

2. Heard Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Sharath, learned counsel for respondent No.1. tt is endorsed in the affrdavit that respondent Nos'2 to 8 are not necessary parties to this Revision Petrtion' Perused the entire material available on record'

3. The petitioner herein is defendant No'1 and respondent No. 1 is plaintiff in the suit before the trial Court"

4. The brief facts of the case that are relevant for adjudication of the present revision are that the respondent No.1 frled a suit uide O.S.No.1O9 of 2023 against the revision petiLioner and respondent Nos.2 to 8 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit A and B schedule properties; and also to declare the registered documents 1 LNA, J C.R.P.No- 12O8 of 2024 bearing Nos,2O3 of 2016, d,ated 24.LO.2OL6, 2lgl of 2O18, dated 25.O6.2O18 arrd 2lOO of 2OO9, dated 2O. 1O.2OO9 and Will deed dated 2O.12.L994, as null ald void. 5. The petitioner herein entered appearance and frled an application urde I.A.No.S14 of 2023 under Order XI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 seeking to direct respondent No.l to answer the interrogatories. In the affidavit, frled tn support of the said application, it is averred that the plaint is silent with regard to the chequered history of litigation rn respect of suit schedule property, which commenced after the death of Sa[ranarayana Soni and the relevant facts are also supplgssed, therefore, the suit is nothing but an abuse of judicial process, and it goes to the root of the matter.

6. The petitioner also frled another application in IA.No.116S of 2023 undbr Order XII Rule 6 of C.p.C. for dismissaL of the suit on the ground tJlat the suit is barred by limitation. Therefore, the interrogatories are required to be answered by the respondents. r I 3 LNA, J C-R-P-No- I2O8 ot 2024 7 . Respondent No' I frled counter-allidavit resisting the apptication and contended that he fitred I'A'No' 197 of 2Ol8 tt O.S.No.596 of 2O1O, seeking to implead him as party to the suit, since he has interest over suit A and B schedule properties, as per ttre terms of the Will deed executed by Bhawari Devi Soni, however, the said application was dismissed on 27 -12.2O21, directing to frle a separate suit' Hence, respondent No'l frled the present suit and that the petitioner has no right or title to claim the interest over the suit schedule property and' hence' ttre application is liable to b,e dismissed

8. The trial C,otrrt uide impugrred order dated ll'Ol'2024 dismissed the aPPlication with an observation that the grounds raised by the petitioner are relating to qr-restions rn the natrrre of cross examination and the question of law' in vhich interrogatories shall be not asked and therefore' the application is not maintainable' Aggrieved by tlre same' the present Civil Revision Petition is filed'

9. karned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the trial Court has erroneously dismissed the application without properly appreciating ttre nature of the application \\ t 4 LNA. J C.R.P.No. l2O8 of 2O2a scope of Iiled by the petitioner; that the trial Court has came to an erroneous conclusion that the interrogatories are in the form of cross examination and therefore, the same cannot be permitted, which is contrary to the scheme and Order XI Rule 6 of C.p.C. He would further submit that the tria_l Court, at the first instance, ought to have decided I.A.No.514 of 2025, which was f,led to answer the interrogatories and tJrereafter, ought to have taken up I.A.No. 1165 of 2023. By contending thus, learned counsel contended that the impugned order suffers from illegalities artd infirmities and hence, prayed to allow this Revision. lO. Per contra, Ieamed counsel for respondent No. I would submit that the issue in the suit revolves around the succession to the properties left behind by Bhawari Devi Soni alrd Satyanarayana Soni and 26.12.t994, 20.12.t994 and rntricate questions need to be addressed by the Co\rrt after leading of evidence by all the parties to the litigation; and therefore, seeking interrogatories does not help the petitioner arrd hence, the application filed under Order XI Rule 1 of mrsconceived and is liable to be dismissed. He the three WiII deeds, 24.10.2016 and as such, C.tr.C. is ) LNA, J C.R.P-No.I2O8 ot 2O24 wolrld further submit that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application by the impugned order with an observation ttrat the interrogatories are in the nature of cross examination and question of law in which interrogatories shall not be asked and hence, the impugned order warrants no interference bY this Court. 1 1. Before adverting to the merits of the case' it is appropriate to refer to Order XI Rule 1 of C'P'C'' which reads as under:

1. Discovery by interrogatories: - ln any suit the plaintiff - by teave of the Court rrray deliver or defendairt interrogatories in writing for the examination of t}e oppo.ii" parties or *y oit or mgre- of. such parties' and i.rt"iogatories wlien delivered strall have a note at the -stating which of such interrogatories each of "irit foot ttrereof such persons is required to answer: Provided that nd party shall deliver more than one set of it i.rrog"to.i." to ihe sa*e party without an order for ttrat Purpose: Provided also that interrogatories which do not relate to any *"tt"." in question in tlre suit shall be deemed irrelevant' norwittrstaliing that ttrey might be admissibte on the oral cross-exarnination of a witness'

12. A reading of Order X{ Rule 1 of C'P'C' indicates that interrogatories shall relate to the matters in question in the suit, and if they do not relate to any matters in question to ttre suit, the same shall be deemed irrelevant' t\ ') 6 LNA, J C.R-P.No.l2O8 of 2O24 c'.

13. A perusal of the record would disclose t-hat the petitioner posed as mzrny as eighteen interrogatories along with applicatio n uid.e I.A.No.SI4 of 2023, to be answered by respondent No.l, which pertain to various documents, incidents and disputed facts. The material on record would also indicate that there are serious disputes with regard to alleged execution of Wi[ deeds uide dated 26. I2.lgg4, 2O.12.L994 and 24.10.2016 by Bhawari Devi Soni and Salranarayana Soni and there are claims, counter clairn5 614 disputed question of facts, which can be decided only after full-fledged trial of the suit. Therefore, as rightly observed by the trial Court, the interrogatories posed by the petitioner are in the nature of cross examination and also question of law which. cannot be considered at threshold even before commencement of the trial.

14. In the light of the above discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Revision is devoid of merits and the petitioner failed to point out any irregularig arld illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court and accordingly, the Civi] Revision petition is dismissed. No costs. 7 LNA, J C.R.P-No- t2O8 of 2024

15. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ,,TRUE COPYI/ SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL PUTYREGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER o To, ''n' [[',ito,i'ffi:S1:I#"ft':&? t?'333i* 5. SliE EE ii sli'i. st'-"-ratt', Advocate [oPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies o HIGH COURT DATED.12t6t2025 ORDER CRP.No.1208 of 2024 i) i' / 2$]i:Pz 0ffi _!- t! .-<. \:-=:- ::-i'' _.- -:;:;j REVISION IS DISMISSED, NIO COSTS t J