AMAR CHAND BUTAIL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (f), purporting to be against three orders passed by the learned District Judge of Mahasu on 8 9 1953, 13 11 1953 and 1 12 1953, refusing to strike off the defence of respondents 1 and 2, under the provisions of Order 11, Rule 21 Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) FOR reasons stated in this Court's order dated 14 7 1956, it was held that it was not open to the appellant to challenge the order passed by the District Judge, Mahasu (Sri Chet Ram) on 8 9 1953, because no appeal against that order was preferred within the period of limitation. I further held that it was open to the appellant to assail the orders passed by the District Judge on 13 11 1953 and 1 12 1953, but in doing so, he should confine himself strictly to any wilful default, committed by respondents 1 and 2, subsequent to 8 9 1953.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant (Mr. Chandu Lal) invited my attention to two applications, i.e., under Order 11, Rule 1 and under Order 11, Rule 12, Civil P. C., made by him on behalf of the plaintiff on 4 4 1953. On 9 7 1953, the learned Government Advocate (Mr. L. N. Sethi) put in a reply. The reply was to the effect that the documents mentioned in the plaintiff's application could not be traced, despite best efforts, and, consequently, it was not possible to reply to the interrogatories, without reference to the original documents. This reply was supported by an affidavit signed by Mr. Sethi and attested by Mr. Lachhman Das, Senior Subordinate Judge, Mahasu. On the same day (9 7 1953), the plaintiff put in a petition under Order 11, Rule 21, praying that the defence of defendants 1 and 2 be struck off, since they had failed to answer the interrogatories and give discovery of documents despite orders of the Court and grant of many adjournments. On 20 9 1953, Mr. L. N. Sethi, Government Advocate, filed a reply to the interrogatories. On the same day, he also filed a reply to the application for discovery of documents. In that reply, it was stated that documents specified in Annexure 'A' could not be traced. Such documents, as were traced out, were produced (as specified in Annexure 'B'). As regards the rest, privilege was claimed on the basis of a statement, purporting to be on solemn affirmation made by Pt. Padam Dev, Home Minister of Himachal Pradesh. On 1 10 1953, an objection was filed by the plaintiff, directed against the replies submitted by Mr. Sethi on 20 9 1953. Inter alia, it was pointed out therein that the reply was not an oath. It was further contended that the answers were evasive and even the documents specified in Annexure 'B' had not been produced. It was further pointed out that the statement of Pt. Padam Dev was not affidavit and privilege had been wrongly claimed. Mr. Sita Ram, who, by this time had replaced Mr. L. N. Sethi, as Government Advocate, filed two more replies on 1 12 1953. One was the reply to the plaintiff's petition for discovery of documents and other was a reply to the interrogatories submitted by the plaintiff,