KARTICK CHANDRA CHANAD Vs. AMAU KUMAR DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition in revision under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order passed by the Munsiff, First Court, Howrah permitting delivery of interrogatories and directing the petitioner to furnish security. Petitioner was tenant defendant in Title Suit No. 354 of 1962 of the Court of the Munsif and the landlord brought the suit of ejectment on the ground of default. On the application of the landlord, the Munsif by order No. 29 dated 17. 8. 63 directed the tenant defendant to furnish security to the extent of the arrear claimed. The learned Munsif also by order dated July 25, 1963 allowed the plaintiff landlord leave to deliver interrogatories as he held that the interrogatories were necessary for fair disposal of the suit.

(2.) ON 7. 8. 63, the petitioner objected to answer interrogatories by an affidavit but the learned Munsif overruled the objection and directed him to answer by 17. 8. 63. On this date the defendant petitioner again filed a verified petition purported to be under Older 11, rule 6 of the Code of civil Procedure praying for vacating the order dated 7. 8. 63. The learned Munsif rejected this petition too. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsif, this application has been filed by the tenant petitioner. His contention is that the interrogatories are irrelevant and unnecessary and that the order was passed without giving him proper hearing. The opposite party contends that the order for delivery of interrogatories and then the order rejecting the objection on affidavit were passed by the learned Munsif after hearing both parties. The petition dated august 17, 1963 was presumably under Or. 11, r. 7, C. P. Code and is barred by limitation, having been filed after expiry of 7 days. He also pleaded that the order to deliver interrogatories dated 25. 7. 63 having been filed after hearing the petition, the objection dated 7. 8. 63 was misconceived. Order 11, rule 6, C. P. Code provides for objection to interrogatories while r. 7 for setting aside and striking out interrogatories. Or. 11, r. 6, C. P. C. applies to cases where such person does not object to answer some of the interrogatories while takes objection to answer certain others, while r. 7, C. P. C. provides for application for setting aside the interrogatories on the ground that these are unreasonable or vexatious or on the ground that these are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous. There is no doubt, that it is open to the party to object to answer certain interrogatories under Or. 11, r. 6, C. P. C. although his objection to delivery of the interrogatories upon the same ground has been overruled. The case reported in (1) 51 C. W. N. at page 250 is authority on this point. If, therefore, the petitioner answered some of the interrogatories and raised objections with regard to others on 7. 8. 63, the objections should be heard. The learned Munsif, as a matter of fact, gave him a hearing though he rejected the petitioner's contention. It, however, appears from the affidavit itself that the petitioner did not answer any of the interrogatories but virtually objected to the delivery of interrogatories themselves. The objections taken in the affidavit in answer therefore, really came under r. 7 and not under r. 6, but though beyond 7 days, the objections were heard. The subsequent petition dated 17. 8. 63 is also purported to be filed under r. 6 but there also was a prayer for vacating the order directing delivery of interrogatories and as such must be treated as a petition under r. 7 and on the same ground of delay, the petition is not entertainable. The learned Munsif, however, in both the cases heard the lawyers and rejected the petition on merits as he found that the interrogatories were proper and necessary and there is, therefore, no reason why this Court shall interfere with the learned Munsif's order in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

(3.) SO far as the other point is concerned, the learned advocate during hearing did not press his application in respect of the order for security. In view of the arrear of rent, the learned Munsif was perfectly justified in asking for security and it is only fair for the learned advocate to give up this point. This application, therefore fails. It is ordered that the application be dismissed on contest with costs and the stay order vacated. The Rule is discharged accordingly.