MANOHAR LAL Vs. L RS OF GOVIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None present for the respondents despite service.

(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioner - plaintiff has challenged the order dtd.20.8.2008, whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application under Order 11 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. filed by petitioner - plaintiff seeking the defendants to be served with certain interrogatories filed with the said application.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner - plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court by the impugned order dtd.20.8.2008 has virtually tried to answer these questions in the impugned order on behalf of the defendants without even calling upon the defendants to answer the said interrogatories. He submitted, relying upon the various decisions, like Ramlal Sao v. Tansingh Lal Singh,1952 AIR(Nag) 135; Jamaitri Bishansarup v. Rai Bahadur Moti Lal, 1960 AIR(Cal) 536; Ganga Devi v. Krushana Prasad Sharma, 1967 AIR(Ori) 194; Thakur Prasad v. Md. Sahayal,1977 AIR(Pat) 233; Janki Ballar Patnaik v. Benvett Coleman & Co. Ltd., 1989 AIR(Ori) 216; Hira Lal Dhanpat Rai v. Laxmi Chand,1993 1 RajLW 469; P. Balan v. Central Bank of India,2000 AIR(Ker)24; Smt. Sharda Dhir v. Ashok Kumar Makhija and Ors. and Raj Narayan v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi and Ors., 1972 AIR(SC) 1302 that service of such interrogatories would have cut down the litigation as there was earlier a suit for partition between the parties in respect of said property and the decree had been passed in the said suit and the defendant had filed first appeal in this Court, namely, first appeal No. 931/1997 which is pending in this Court. He submitted that the very object of Order 11 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. is to elicit certain information from the defendant which could cut down the controversy and the suit filed for possession and mesne profit by the plaintiff who is bonafide purchaser of the property in question could be cut short.