SHRIVALLABH Vs. IBRAHIMKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 2572013 passed below Exhibit57 in Regular Civil Suit No.559/2012. By aforesaid order, the application moved by the petitioner original plaintiff calling upon the respondents defendants to answer interrogatories under provisions of Order 11 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') has been rejected.

(3.) The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are as follows:The petitioner is the original plaintiff who has filed Special Civil Suit No.60/2006 seeking declaration that the judgment and decree dated 5112003 passed in Special Civil Suit No.325/1994 was null and void, the same having been obtained by practicing fraud. According to the petitioner, the suit property was agreed to be sold by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner. According to the petitioners, a document was shown to have been executed on 321992 by the respondent No.1 by obtaining the acknowledgment of the petitioner as having receiving a sum of Rs.63,000/in view of consideration for aforesaid plot. On the basis of another document dated 1081992, the respondent No.1 had filed Special Civil Suit No. 325/1994 seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of aforesaid suit property. According to the petitioner, in said suit a notice dated 1271993 had been filed by the respondent No.1. According to the petitioner, the decree in the aforesaid suit had been obtained by the respondent No.1 by playing fraud. A declaration to that effect had been sought by the petitioner in subsequent suit.