PARMANAND SINGH Vs. DILIP JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8.8.2006 passed by the learned Sub - Judge -IX, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 68/1998 whereby the learned Court below has refused the Petitioner's prayer to direct the Respondents to deliver the required interrogatories. It has been submitted that the Defendants' claim is based on the registered sale -deed dated 12.7.1996. The original document of the said sale -deed was not filed by the Defendants -Respondents. The Plaintiff -Petitioner is still in dark about the true information regarding the detail of identifier, the mode of payment of consideration amount, original signature of the witnesses etc. Under that circumstance, the Plaintiff filed an application dated 2.2.2006 under Order XI, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Court praying for a direction on the Defendants to deliver the required interrogatories. By the impugned order learned Court below, has rejected the said application on the ground that the questionnaires of the interrogatories are related to the facts mentioned in the sale -deed dated 12.7.1996 and that the questionnaires are irrelevant.

(2.) MR . Rejeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that impugned order is erroneous as in the sale -deed dated 12.7.1996 the date, time and period of payment are not mentioned. The relevant detail of the identifier is missing and the same could have been clarified only by the Defendants by answering the questionnaires of the said interrogatories. Learned Court below has erroneously refused to entertain the said application on the ground that the said detail can be found in the copy of the sale -deed. It has been submitted that the interrogatories were sought in order to shorten the litigation and to save the precious time of the Court. But the same has been erroneously refused by the learned Court below.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts on record. Though the Petitioner may be right in saying that some of the details are missing in the copy of the sale -deed, other relevant details about the identifier, mode of payment etc. can be found from the sale -deed. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the Respondents that the other details have been furnished in the written statement, and those facts are available on record.