POONAM MANSHARAMANI Vs. AJIT MANSHARAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties are at loggerheads on the validity of the order dated 31.7.2015, passed by the Sixteenth Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No.6A/2014.

(2.) Draped in brevity, the facts are that the petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit for possession based on title and mesne profit against the respondent/defendant. The respondent filed his written statement and contested the suit. The petitioner then filed an application under Order 11 Rules 1 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) dated 29.4.2015 (Annexure P/7). Along with the said application, the petitioner enclosed interrogatories. In turn, the respondent filed his reply on 1.7.2015 (Annexure P/8). The court below rejected the aforesaid application (Annexure P/7) by impugned order dated 31.7.2015. This order is called in question in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) Shri Chhabra, learned counsel for the petitioner criticized the said order by contending that the application (Annexure P/7) was filed in order to elicit the admission from the defendant to avoid the lengthy evidence and with a view to get expeditious disposal of the suit. The court below has erred in rejecting the application by giving an incorrect finding that the suit cannot be decided on the basis of the interrogatories, without appreciating the fact that purpose of furnishing interrogatories was not to have the disposal of suit based on such interrogatories but to expedite the trial of the suit by avoiding unnecessary procedural rigmarole. He submits that the court below has rejected the application on irrelevant considerations. In support of his contention, he relied on (Jamaitrai Bishansarup v. Rai Bahadur Motilal Chamaria, 1960 AIR(Cal) 536) and (Ramlalsao v. Tansingh Lalsingh, 1952 AIR(Nag) 135).