JAMAITRAI BISHANSARUP Vs. RAI BAHADUR MOTILAL CHAMARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for leave to deliver Interrogatories. The plaintiffs suit is for the recovery of Rs. 3,05,679/14/- or Rs. 5,78,403/ 8/6. The plaintiffs case in short is that there were dealings and transactions between the defendant in the firm name of Rai Bahadur Hardut Rai Motilal Chamaria and the plaintiff for the purchase and sale of various commodities and inter alia one of the terms of business was that the plaintiff would advance monies to or on account of the defendants at the request of the defendant by way of temporary accommodation repayable on demand. The defendant in the written statement states that there were transactions but denies that the terms & conditions mentioned in paragraph 2 (a) of the plaint were agreed by and between the parties. The defendant also denies that the plaintiff is entitled to any claim or to any indemnity for any loss.

(2.) There are two affidavits affirmed On behalf of the defendant; one is affirmed by Sugan Chand Sarowgee on 24-7-1959 and the other is an affidavit of Rai Bahadur Motilal Chamaria affirmed on 22-9-1959. In the affidavit of Sugan Chand Sarowgee it is alleged that the interrogatories asked for are matters of evidence to be gone into at the hearing or when accounts are to be taken and further that the answers to the interrogatories are best known to the plaintiff. In paragraph 8 of that affidavit it is denied that payments were made by the plaintiff to parties on behalf of the defendant as alleged or at all. In the affidavit affirmed by Rai Bahadur Motilal Chamaria it is stated that the statements made in paragraph, 8 of the affidavit affirmed by Sugan Chand Sarowgee are correct and it is denied that payments were made by the plaintiff to parties on behalf of the defendant.

(3.) Counsel for the defendant contended that interrogatories should not be allowed because the plaintiff has to prove his case and unless he has discharged the onus the defendant is not liable to answer any question. It was also contended that the plaintiff should possess evidence in support of his case and he could not obtain proof of his case by extracting interrogatories. No other objection was taken to the interrogatories.