High Court · 2025

C.R.P.No.253 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 31.01.2025CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANC.R.P.No.253 of 2025 &CMP.No.1602 of 2025Lieutenant Colonel Sandeep Dewan (Retd) .. Petitioner VersusM/s.Ootacamund ClubRepresented by its PresidentHaving registered office at:No.179, Club Road, Ootacamund,The Nilgiris. .. Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 21.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in O.S.No.65 of 2022 on the file of the learned District Judge, Udhagamandalam at The Nilgiris.For Petitioner: Lieutenant Colonel Sandeep Dewan (Retd), Party-in-personFor Respondent : Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.253 of 2025 ORDERThis civil revision petition challenges the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhi Mandram at Udhagamandalam in IA.No.6 of 2024 in OS.No.65 of 2022 dated 21.08.2024. 2. The civil revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. He presented OS.No.65 of 2022 seeking for a declaration that his suspension from the club is null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking any steps to give effect to the suspension order and other reliefs. For the purpose of this revision, I need not go into the details of the allegations and counter allegations. 3. Pending the suit, the plaintiff moved an application in IA.No.6 of 2024 seeking leave of the court to deliver interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application came to be dismissed. Hence, this revision. 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.253 of 20254. The petitioner pleaded that he filed a memo before the Trial Court seeking permission to deliver interrogatories. He filed another memo on 16.06.2023 for the same and other reliefs. As they were not acceded to, he came forward with an application. Along with the application, he has annexed a set of interrogatories running to about 7 pages. This was filed on 02.11.2023 before the Trial Court and presented before me by way of an additional type set. 5. After numbering the application, the learned Trial Judge issued notice to the defendant to file its counter. The defendant pleaded, as the issues have been framed and the trial has commenced, the plaintiff can always let in oral evidence and raise all questions, during the course of cross examination. It pleaded that the questions asked are frivolous and unnecessary as much water has flown under the bridge after the issuance of the suspension order. On this and other grounds, it sought for dismissal of the application. 6. The learned Trial Judge, after referring to the authorities under Order XI, came to a conclusion that as this Court in CMA.No.2518 of 2022 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.253 of 2025has directed the learned Judge to dispose of the suit within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that Judgement, the learned Trial Judge felt allowing the application would further lengthen the trial and therefore, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff is on revision before me. 7. I heard Mr.Lieutenant Colonel Sandeep Dewan (Retired), Party in person and Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy for the respondent.8. Lt.Col.Dewan invites my attention to the questions sought to be answered by way of interrogatories and states that they are relevant for the purpose of dealing with the suit. 9. Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy states that the very same set of interrogatories had been given before the District Munsif Court at Udhagamandalam in O.S.No.68 of 2022 and only certain questions namely g, h, o, p, s, x, z, bb & cc were permitted and the others were rejected. He states that the party-in-person has not preferred any revision against those rejected portions before this Court. He adds, what has been lost, before the 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.253 of 2025District Munsif cannot be reclaimed before the District Judge and pleads for dismissal of the revision.10. I have carefully considered the submissions on both sides. 11. The pre-trial proceedings of interrogatories, admission and discovery of documents have been introduced only for the purpose of shortening the litigation and fast-pacing the trial. Under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff or the defendant, with the leave of the court, may deliver interrogatories stating the purpose for which it is being issued. Under the interrogatories, a party can summon the documents and call upon the other side to make admissions relating to the matters in question. Such interrogatories must be necessary to enable the court to dispose of the suit fairly and for saving costs. 12. The issue before the court in O.S.No.65 of 2022 as well as in O.SNo.68 of 2022 (renumbered as OS.No.127 of 2024) on the file of the Principal District Judge at Udhagamandalam, are with respect to the enquiry, suspension and expulsion of the party-in-person / plaintiff. 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.253 of 2025Therefore, the plaintiff will be entitled to ask any questions which touch upon this issue. However, it is not open to the party to conduct a fishing exercise like deep-sea trawler fishing and try to procure evidence for the purpose of prosecuting the application under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code or any other purposes. 13. I have carefully gone through the questions. The learned District Munsif has already permitted a set of questions as referred to above. The questions in Sl.Nos.3, 4 and 5 touch upon the committee meeting that had taken place prior to, taking of the decision, to suspend the party-in-person. That being a necessary issue in the suit, I am inclined to grant the relief in Sl.Nos.3, 4 and 5. The questions in Sl.Nos.6, 7 and 8 do not relate to his expulsion but are the allegations made by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, it is on account of him questioning the activities with regard to aspects as found in Sl.Nos.6, 7 and 8, that the defendant decided to suspend him and subsequently, expel him from the club.14. It is always open to the plaintiff to produce such evidence as available with him in order to substantiate the allegations made by him. 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.253 of 2025However, these facts cannot be introduced by the plaintiff by way of interrogatories. Therefore, the interrogatories in Sl.Nos.6, 7, and 8 are rejected. 15. Insofar as Sl.No.3 is concerned, Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy is clear that he is going to examine one M.M.Venkatachalam, the President of the club, who is also the head of the committee governing the club. Hence the set of questions under Sl.No.3 can be answered by the said M.M.Venkatachalam. Questions 4 and 5 are addressed to the employees of the club regarding the alleged enquiry report that is said to have been submitted to the committee. That would be relevant to the present case. Hence, the order of dismissal of the learned Trial Judge is modified. 16. The exercise done by the learned District Munsif, Udhagamandalam in O.S.No.68 of 2022 need not be repeated before the learned District Judge, Udhagamanadalam.17. Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy states that whatever questions that were put by way of interrogatories before the District Munsif had already been 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.253 of 2025answered. That being the position, the interrogatories found in Sl. No.3 will be responded to by M.M.Venkatachalam, by Mr. Oomen Abraham insofar as Sl.No.4 is concerned and by Mr.Lokesh insofor as Sl.No.5 is concerned. As pointed out above, Sl.Nos.6, 7 and 8 stand rejected. 18. The party-in-person fears that on account of the rejection of the interrogatories, he might not be permitted to cross examine the witnesses during the course of trial on the issues that have been raised by him in the interrogatories and rejected by this Court. This fear is unfounded. It is open to the plaintiff to put such questions in the cross examination including discrediting or questioning the credibility of the witnesses including issues covering questions that have been rejected in the interrogatories. 19. With the above observations, the civil revision petition is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.31.01.2025nlIndex: yes/no8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.253 of 2025Speaking order/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: yes/noToThe District Judge, Udhagamandalam at The Nilgiris.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.253 of 2025V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.nl C.R.P.No.253 of 202531.01.202510/10