RAMACHANDRALAH T Vs. N R SUYODHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The C.R.P. is filed against the orders of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi in I.A. No.287 of 1999 in O.S. No.110 of 1994.

(2.) The petitioner is the defendant The respondent/plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10-10-1991 in respect of suit schedule property. It is the case of the petitioner that such agreement was not executed and denies the same. However, trial has commenced in the suit. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and when P.W.3 was being examined, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XI Rule 1 C.P.C. seeking leave of the Court to issue interrogatories to the defendant. The said application was allowed by the lower Court by an order dated 2-7-1999 in I.A. No.287 of 1999. Aggrieved by the said order the present revision petition has been filed by the defendant.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.V. Vidyasagar submits that the very exercise of the power by the lower Court is wholly misconceived. The lower Court did not consider the relevant provisions under Order XI Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. and thus, the lower Court committed a grave error in allowing the application. He also submits that interrogatories are not at all connected with the matter under adjudication and it is only to protract the proceedings such an application has been filed. The intention of Order XI is to reduce the adjudication time in the interest the parties but, on the other hand, this application is filed to prolong the litigation between the parties.