S.B. CWP No. 8115 of 2012 · Rajasthan High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
22nd May, 2012 HON' BLE MR. J USTI CE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr . P. S. Si r ohi , f or t he pet i t i oner . By way of t he i ns t ant wr i t pet i t i on, t he pet i t i oner has bes eec hed t o quas h and s et as i de t he or der dat ed 24t h Febr uar y , 2012, wher eby t he l ear ned Addi t i onal Di s t r i c t J udge, No. 2, J ai pur Met r opol i t an, J ai pur , di s mi s s ed t he appl i c at i on f i l ed under Or der 11 Rul e 1 of CPC.
Shor n of unnec es s ar y det ai l s , t he f ac t s of t he c as e, i n nub, ar e t hat t he pet i t i oner - pl ai nt i f f f i l ed a s ui t f or per manent i nj unc t i on agai ns t t he r es pondent s i n t he c our t of Di s t r i c t J udge, Met r opol i t an on 20t h J ul y , 2011, t oget her wi t h an appl i c at i on of t empor ar y i nj unc t i on f i l ed under Or der 39 Rul e 1 and 2 of CPC. Dur i ng t he pendenc y of t he s ui t , t he pet i t i oner - pl ai nt i f f f i l ed an appl i c at i on and del i v er ed 2 S.B. CWP No. 8115/2012 t he i nt er r ogat or i es of whi c h t he r epl y was r equi r ed t o be s ought f or f r om t he r es pondent no. 6. The l ear ned t r i al c our t gai ns ai d t o gr ant l eav e and di s mi s s ed t he appl i c at i on under Or der 11 Rul e 1 of CPC obs er v i ng t hat t he r es pondent no. 5 Smt . Mani t a J ai n had ans wer ed al l t hes e ques t i ons i n hi s wr i t t en s t at ement of def enc e.
Hear d t he l ear ned c ouns el f or t he pet i t i oner and c ar ef ul l y per us ed t he r el ev ant mat er i al on r ec or d i nc l udi ng t he i mpugned or der .
Lear ned c ouns el f or t he pet i t i oner c anv as s ed t hat t he r es pondent no. 5 l andl or d r ent ed out t he s hop t o t he hus band of pet i t i oner - pl ai nt i f f and af t er t he deat h of her hus band, s he engaged r es pondent no. 2 Tar s em J ai n, who happens t o be her s on, on t he s hop f or as s i s t anc e, now he has oc c upi ed t he s hop and obs t r uc t s her ent r y t her ei n. Des pi t e her s t r enuous ef f or t s , t he r es pondent no. 2 di d not v ac at e nor handed ov er t he pos s es s i on of t he s hop t o hi s mot her pet i t i oner - pl ai nt i f f . Lear ned c ouns el f ur t her c anv as s ed t hat t he r es pondent no. 2 Tar s em J ai n has j oi ned hands wi t h t he 3 S.B. CWP No. 8115/2012 r es pondent no. 6 l andl or d and i t i s t he r eas on t hat r es pondent no. 6 has been c ont i nuous l y s t at i ng t hat t hi s s hop was nev er l et t o t he hus band of t he pet i t i oner - pl ai nt i f f but f r om t he begi nni ng i t was i n t he pos s es s i on, oc c upat i on and us e of r es pondent no. 2, t he s on of pet i t i oner - pl ai nt i f f . Lear ned c ouns el al s o ar gued t hat t he r es pondent no. 6 has s uppr es s ed s o many f ac t s , t he ans wer s of whi c h ar e r equi r ed t o be di s c ov er ed and pl ac ed on r ec or d, henc e, s he has del i v er ed t he i nt er r ogat or i es t o be ans wer ed by t he r es pondent no. 6 f or t he pur pos e of di s c ov er y and i nv es t i gat i on of f ac t s .
I t i s r el ev ant t o r ec or d t hat f or t he j us t dec i s i on of t he pet i t i on, I need t o r epr oduc e t he pr ov i s i ons of Or der 11 Rul e 1 of CPC, whi c h ar e as under : - or def endant
1. Di s c ov er y i nt er r ogat or i es . - I n any s ui t t he pl ai nt i f f l eave of t he Cour t may del i ver f or i nt er r ogat or i es ex ami nat i on of t he oppos i t e par t i es or any one or mor e of s uc h s uc h i nt er r ogat or i es when del i v er ed s hal l hav e a not e at t he f oot i n wr i t i ng par t i es 4 S.B. CWP No. 8115/2012 t her eof s t at i ng whi c h of i nt er r ogat or i es eac h of per sons i s r equi r ed t o answer : s uc h s uc h no par t y shal l t hat Pr ovi ded t han one set del i ver mor e i nt er r ogat or i es t he same par t y wi t hout an or der f or t hat pur pos e; t o al so t hat Pr ovi ded i nt er r ogat or i es whi c h do not i n t o any mat t er s r el at e ques t i on i n t he s ui t s hal l deemed i r r el ev ant , not wi t hs t andi ng t hat t hey mi ght be admi s s i bl e on t he or al c r os s - ex ami nat i on of a wi t nes s .
A bar e r eadi ng of pr ov i s o t o r ul e 1 t angi bl y s ugges t s t hat i nt er r ogat or y , whi c h does not r el at e t o any mat t er i n i s s ue, s hal l be deemed t o be i r r el ev ant , f or whi c h t he ans wer i s not r equi r ed t o be s ought f or . I f we put a gl anc e on t he i nt er r ogat or i es , we f i nd t hat f i r s t ques t i on i s r el at ed t o as t o when t he s hop no. 7 was c ons t r uc t ed?; t he s ec ond ques t i on i s as t o whom t hi s s hop was f i r s t of al l l et out ?; t hi r d, as t o whet her t hi s s hop was ev er l et out t o l at e Amr i t l al ?; s o and s o f or t h. Thes e ques t i ons ar e not at al l r el at ed t o 5 S.B. CWP No. 8115/2012 t he mat t er i n i s s ue. Ther e i s not ev en a whi s per of t hes e ques t i ons i n t he pl ai nt . I t i s t ot al l y an i r r el ev ant ques t i on t o be as k ed as t o when was t he s hop c ons t r uc t ed by t he r es pondent no.
6?; how muc h money was s pent on c ons t r uc t i on of t he s ame and?; how many wor k er s and mes ons wor k ed dur i ng t he c ons t r uc t i on?; Agai n, i t i s not r el ev ant t o be as k ed as t o whet her t he s hop was ev er r ent ed out t o t he dec eas ed Amr i t l al or not ? When t he r es pondent no. 6 has unequi v oc al l y and c at egor i c al l y s uppl i ed wr i t t en s t at ement of def enc e s t at i ng t hat t he s hop i n ques t i on was l et out t o r es pondent no. 2 Tar s em J ai n r i ght f r om t he begi nni ng and he had been i n pos s es s i on and oc c upat i on of t he s hop i n ques t i on, i t was not obl i gat i on f or t he r es pondent no. 6 t o di s c l os e as t o when t hi s s hop was c ons t r uc t ed and t o whom f i r s t of al l i t was l et out . Nei t her , i t i s t he c as e of t he pet i t i oner - pl ai nt i f f t hes e ques t i ons ar e r el at ed t o t he mat t er i n i s s ue.
The r es pondent no. 6 has f ur ni s hed t he r epl y i n det ai l and af t er t he per us al of t he wr i t t en s t at ement of def enc e, I do not f i nd i t nec es s ar y t hat t hes e i nt er r ogat or i es s houl d be del i v er ed t o t he r es pondent no. 6 6 S.B. CWP No. 8115/2012 f or f ur ni s hi ng t hei r ans wer s . The l ear ned t r i al c our t has r i ght l y gai ns ai d t o gr ant l eav e t o del i v er t he i nt er r ogat or i es t o t he r es pondent no. 6. I n t he f ac t s and c i r c ums t anc es of t he c as e, t he i mpugned or der i s f ound t o be j us t and pr oper . I t i s no wher e ment i oned i n t he pl ai nt t hat t he r es pondent no. 2 Tar s em J ai n had j oi ned hands wi t h t he r es pondent no. 6 and i t t he r eas on t hat he deni ed l at e Amr i t l al t o hav e been hi s t enant i n t he s hop i n ques t i on. I n v i ew t her eof , t he wr i t pet i t i on i s f ound t o be t ot al l y dev oi d of s ubs t anc e and t he s ame des er v es t o be di s mi s s ed at t he t hr es hol d.
For t he r eas ons s t at ed abov e, t he wr i t pet i t i on f ai l s and t he s ame bei ng ber ef t of any mer i t s t ands di s mi s s ed.
Cons equent upon t he di s mi s s al of t he wr i t pet i t i on, t he s t ay appl i c at i on does not s ur v i v e and t he s ame al s o s t ands di s mi s s ed. ( MAHESH BHAGWATI ) , J . Mak/- 7 All Corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Anil Makawana Jr. Personal Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 22 May 2012. The bench was USTI MAHESH BHAGWATI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.