Bench:
Sujoy Paul J
Issue:
Whether the lower court has interpreted the order 11 rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code rightly and has rejected the petitioner’s suit on correct grounds.
Petitioner's Contention:
The petitioner filed an application under order 11 rules 1 &4 of Civil procedural Code to draw out the admission of the defendant and to get a speedy disposal of the case, The Court has rejected the Petitioner’s claim, therefore the petitioner has went for an appeal in the High Court stating that his application was rejected without proper consideration in the lower court.
Facts:
- Petitioner has filed an application under Order 11 Rule 1 & 4 of CPC which is dated 29.04.2015 with also interrogatories attached with the application.
- The District court rejected the application of the petitioner by an impugned order dated 31.07.2015.
- Therefore the Petitioner went for appeal under the High court of Madhya Pradesh as the court below did not consider his suit.
- The High Court widely read out the order stated in the case, and came to a conclusion that interrogatories can be delivered for examination of opposite property.
- The court also stated that the case cannot be concluded based only on the interrogatories, so the defendant is not under compulsion to respond to the interrogatories filed by petitioner.
Respondent's Contention;
The respondent contends the petitioner had filed lengthy interrogatories. The questions were not relevant to the suit of possession, hence the decision by the court below is rightly given without any legal errors. Therefore there is no need of an appeal.
Judgment:
It was held that the court below has not rightly interpreted the Order prescribed in CPC related to the Interrogatories, the application rejected was one and only a single ground of interrogatories. The Court below has not even checked the relevance of the interrogatories to the case. Therefore the court ordered to set aside the impugned order dated 31.07.2015 which was passed to invalidate the application passed by the petitioner.
"It is clear that the court below has rejected the application on incorrect and irrelevant consideration. Thus, order is not in consonance with the mandate of Order 11, Rule 1 CPC. The court below should have applied mind on the relevance of the interrogatories and then should have passed appropriate order. In the impugned order, the court below has not dealt with the aforesaid aspect. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 31.7.2015 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the court below to rehear the parties on the application (Annexure P/7) and decide the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view on merits." said the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
