MUDIMELA KONDA REDDY Vs. GONA NAGI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed O.S. No. 9 of 2006 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, against the respondents, for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession; and ancillary reliefs in respect of the suit schedule properties. The respondents filed written-statement denying the claim of the petitioner. The trial of the suit commenced, and it has proceeded to a substantial extent.

(2.) The petitioner filed I.A. No. 450 of 2008 under Order 11 Rule 1 C.P.C., with a prayer to grant leave to him, to deliver interrogatories to the respondents on certain aspects. The respondents 5 and 8 filed a counter-affidavit and opposed the application. It was pleaded that the I.A. was filed only with a view to protract the litigation. Even while stating so, the view points on the interrogatories were mentioned. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 23-04-2008. Hence, this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties to a suit have every right to deliver interrogatories to other party and the latter is under obligation to answer the same. By placing reliance upon the judgment of Kerala High Court in P. Balan v. Central Bank of India, 2000 AIR(Ker) 24, he contends that the interrogatories can even touch the core issues in the suit and answer to such questions and would minimize the scope of controversy. He submits that the view taken by the trial Court cannot be sustained.