UNION OF INDIA Vs. NATIONAL FERTILIZER LTD , ROPAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of an order striking off the defence of the petitioner on the ground that answers to all the interrogatories have not been filed.

(2.) The petitioner filed a reply to the application inter alia averring that reply to the interrogatories was filed and it is the plaintiff who is taking opportunities for leading evidence for the last one year and is thus delaying the suit on one pretext or the other. It was averred that answer to all the interrogatories by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 was not filed nor there is any explanation with respect to non-filing of the reply to the interrogatories.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant resisted the application and contended that there was no order or leave of the Court to deliver the interrogatories. The defendant has filed an affidavit to the effect that certain documents are not in their possession or custody and no order striking off the defence can be passed unless the interrogatories are served with the leave of the Court. There was no application by the plaintiff averring that reply to the interrogatories was insufficient. The documents sought to be produced by the defendants are already on the record and were proved by the plaintiff. The striking off of the defence is an ultimate step resulting in serious consequences in the proceedings and should not be resorted to unless a clear failure to comply with order of the Court is made out. The learned counsel for the plaintiff pointed out various interrogatories delivered to defendants, the reply of which, according to him was essential. It was averred that the interrogatories were filed along with an application for delivering the same to the defendants which was done by the Court. The interrogatories having been delivered under the direction of the Court implies that the same were delivered with the leave of the Court. The conduct of the defendants praying for an adjournment to reply the interrogatories implies that the same were served on them with permission of the Court.