ESSEL SPORTS PVT. LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been preferred by defendant No.5 under Order XI read with Section 151 CPC for seeking leave to answer interrogatories contained in Form No.2 under Appendix ,,C of the CPC, which are filed along with the application, and for a further direction that the said interrogatories be answered on oath by the plaintiff within the time prescribed under Rule 1 of Order XI CPC. The stage at which the present application has been filed by the applicant/defendant No.5 is set out in the application itself in paragraph 2 in the following words:

(2.) THE applicant submits that it received letter dated 07.07.2012 from Mr. Kiran S. More, inter alia, stating that he had disassociated himself from the plaintiff company and the activities of the Indian Cricket League (ICL). The said letter also, purportedly, states that the said Mr. Kiran S. More was under severe pressure to not only speak out for the benefit of the retired players, but also pressured to accuse defendant No.5 BCCI of not looking after the interests of cricketers in general.

(3.) THE applicant further states that it verily believes that the plaintiff has exerted pressure on the two witnesses, namely Mr. Kiran S. More (PW -4) and Mr. Kapil Dev (PW -1) to falsely depose against defendant No.5. The applicant also states that the plaintiff deliberately concealed the facts of and relating to the resignations tendered by Mr. Kapil Dev and Mr. Kiran S. More. The applicant states that the information concealed by the plaintiff is relevant to the matter in hand, as it could be used by defendant No.5 to properly ascertain the case of the plaintiff and examine the material facts that pertain thereto. The applicant states that in view of the subsequent events it has become necessary for the proper adjudication of the case, that the plaintiff be directed to answer the interrogatories set out in Form No.2 under Appendix ,,C of the CPC which is Annexure I to the application.