ADARSH PALACE PVT. LTD. Vs. SOMANATH DWIBEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order Dated 17.09.2008 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 12844 of 2008 allowing the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent No. 1 against the Judgment and order of the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) dated 14.08.2008 passed in CM.A. No. 23 of 2008 (arising out of C.S. No. 47 of 2008) rejecting the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 under Order 11, Rule 1, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called 'the C.P.C.').

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Respondent No. 1 filed a suit being C.S. No. 47 of 2008 in the Court of the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela along with an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. seeking interim relief. During the pendency of the said application, Respondent No. 1 filed another application under Order 11, Rule 1 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking leave to deliver interrogatories in respect to Hal Khata No. 7, corresponding to Sabik Plot Numbers of the suit property i.e. Plot Nos. 302, 206 and 305 (p) if riot Plot Nos. 465, 466, 467, 468 and 469 and asking as to what was the basis of the preparation of Hal Khata No. 7 during major settlement operation, whether by family arrangement or by Registered Partition deed along with other interrogatories. The vendors and vendee were asked to answer the interrogatories 1 and 2 and Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 3, who is the father of Respondent No. 1, were directed to reply the interrogatories 3 to 5. To the said application, objection was filed that it was not maintainable contending specifically that the defendants in the suit did not dispute the identification of the Scheduled property. As the said application remained pending consideration before the Civil Court, Writ Petition No. 7828 of 2008 was filed before this Court and this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the civil Court to decide the same expeditiously. In pursuance thereof, the case was decided and Learned civil Court came to the conclusion that the application was not maintainable as the application under Order 11, Rule 1 C.P.C. is applicable only while deciding the suit or the proceedings of original nature but not in any other proceedings like Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. Being aggrieved the Respondent No. 1 filed the Writ Petition before this Court challenging the said Judgment and order. The Learned Single Judge vide impugned Judgment and order allowed the said Writ Petition and the Order Dated 14.8.2008 impugned therein, passed by the Learned Civil Court had been set aside and the Writ Petitioner was directed to deliver the interrogatories to the Opposite Parties regarding the number of Sabik Plot in question and the Trial Court was directed to fix the time to answer the said interrogatories. Hence this appeal.

(3.) ON the other hand Shri R.K. Mohanty, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents has placed a very heavy reliance upon the provisions of Section 141 C.P.C. which makes the C.P.C. applicable in other proceedings also and it is submitted that Learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the Writ Petition. The said Judgment does not require any interference whatsoever and thus the appeal is liable to be dismissed.