DEVI DUTT KHETAN Vs. SITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 16.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in suit No. 52/2013 whereby, the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.4 under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the respondent No.1 filed a suit for rendition of the accounts and permanent injunction contending that she herself, the petitioner and the respondents No. 3 and 4 are partners in M/s Vinod Textiles wherein she was having 25% share. It was submitted that as per the documents obtained by her from the Registrar of Firms, she was partner in the firm and was entitled for profit corresponding her share in the firm. She alleged that for last some time, the defendants were not making her available audited balance sheet and details of the firm's accounts. Therefore, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for. The defendant No.4 in his written statement submitted that the plaintiff has retired from the partnership firm w.e.f. 04.01.1994 and has made bald and vague allegations in her plaint. During the course of proceedings, the petitioner-defendant No.4 moved an application dated 10.02.2019 under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking to serve certain interrogatories on the plaintiff which has been rejected by the learned trial Court vide order impugned herein.

(3.) Assailing the order dated 16.01.2020, it was contended by the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner that without examining the relevancy of interrogatories in the light of pleading of the parties and the issues framed thereon, the learned trial Court erred in rejecting the same on the premise of admission by the petitioner in his written statement about retirement of the plaintiff from the partnership firm w.e.f. 04.01.1994. He contended that approach of the learned trial Court in not entertaining the application on account that the petitioner would be free to ask these questions during cross-examination of the plaintiff, was totally misconceived.