DEVENDRA KUMAR KALER Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner-defendant (hereafter 'defendant') and perused the impugned order dated 18.1.2017 which is under challenge to the extent that the Trial Court even while allowing the defendant's application filed under Order XI Rule 1 and 4 CPC for delivery of interrogatories to the respondent-plaintiff (hereafter 'plaintiff') postponed answer thereto to the stage of his evidence.

(2.) Mr.Manoj Bhardwaj counsel for the defendant submitted that the whole purpose of the interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 and 4 CPC is to identify the real and true nature of disputes between the parties for preparation of the case by the defendant, facilitate fair disposal of the proceedings before the trial court and save costs in meandering unfocused trials. It was submitted that the plaintiff laid a suit for specific performance against the defendant on the basis of a purported agreement to sell dated 15.5.1990. The defendant's defence in the written statement interalia was that it was forged and fabricated. Subsequent to filing of the written statement an application under Order XI Rule 1 and 4 CPC was moved, requiring the plaintiff to answer certain questions relating to alleged agreement to sell dated 15.5.1990 such as:-

(3.) The Trial Court on consideration of the defendant's application found that in the context of the plaintiff's case founded upon the agreement to sell dated 15.5.1990 the delivery of interrogatories in issue by the defendant was justified and the plaintiff should answer them. However even while so doing the Trial Court, in a manner wholly without jurisdiction and ultra-vires Order XI Rule 1 to 4 CPC postponed the response to the interrogatories by the plaintiff to the stage of his evidence. Mr.Manoj Bhardwaj submitted that the Trial Court having found that interrogatories sought to be delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff were relevant for the determination of the real and true issues in the suit for specific performance, there was no occasion to postpone the response thereto to the stage of plaintiff's evidence. It was submitted that in the scheme and frame of Civil Procedure Code, the interrogatories filed under Order XI Rule 1 and 4 CPC evidently have to be answered prior to framing of issues under Order XIV CPC.