THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4207 OF 2011
V. Jagan Mohan Reddy
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V. Jaganmohan Reddy
Counsel for the respondent: Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy
1. AIR 1972 SC 1302
2. 1986 (2) ALT 648
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated
18.01.2011 in I.A.No.385 of 2010 in O.S.No.2248 of 2009 on the file of the
Court of the II-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District. The revision
petitioner is the plaintiff.
The brief facts are as under :
The suit is filed against the respondent herein/defendant for perpetual
injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff also filed
I.A.No.1864 of 2009 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of C.P.C. for
temporary injunction. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property
was purchased by him from one Anantha Lakshmi under Registered Sale Deed dated
18.09.1997 and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
It was also pleaded that the plaintiff’s vendor Anantha Lakshmi had purchased
the said property from one B. Prathap Reddy under a Registered Sale Deed, dated
18.05.1966. Alleging that the defendant who is no way concerned with the suit
schedule property attempted to dispossess the plaintiff, the suit for injunction
has been filed.
The defendant filed written statement as well as counter to the application for
temporary injunction denying the plea that the plaintiff had purchased the suit
property under the registered sale deed dated 18.09.1997. The possession of the
plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property has also been denied and it
is claimed that the defendant himself is in possession. According to the
defendant, his father B. Prathap Reddy was the absolute owner and possessor
of Ac.4-00 of land situated in Sy.No.49/5 of Bahadurpura village and during his
lifetime he had divided the land into 38 residential plots and some of the plots
were alienated. It is claimed that the suit schedule property (Plot Nos.31 &
32) was not alienated by his father in favour of anyone much less the
plaintiff’s Vendor Anantha Lakshmi. It is claimed that on the death of his
father on 10.06.2003 the defendant along with his brother and sisters
succeeded to the unsold plots including the suit plots. It is contended that
the sale deed dated 18.05.1966 under which the plaintiff’s vendor said to have
purchased the suit plots was a fabricated document and no such sale deed was
executed by the father of the defendant.
While I.A.No.1864 of 2009 filed for temporary injunction was coming up for
hearing, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.385 of 2010 under Order 11 Rules 1 & 2 of
C.P.C. seeking leave of the Court to deliver interrogatories specified therein.
The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 18.01.2011
observing that in a suit for injunction the burden was on the plaintiff to prove
his case by producing necessary evidence and there was no need to ask the
respondent to answer the queries. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision
Petition is filed by the plaintiff.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material
available on record.
The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Court
below committed a grave error in dismissing the petition as not maintainable.
The learned counsel further contended that in view of the denial of the sale
deed in favour of the plaintiff’s vendor by the defendant, it is necessary for
the plaintiff/petitioner to obtain from the defendant the information by way of
interrogatories and the same would enable the Court to enquire into the prima
facie title of the plaintiff.
Rules 1 & 2 of Order 11 of C.P.C. which deal with interrogatories read as under:
1. Discovery by interrogatories
In any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of the court may deliver
interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties or any
one or more of such parties, and such interrogatories when delivered shall have
a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of such
persons is required to answer.
PROVIDED that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to
the same party without an Order for that purpose:
PROVIDED also that the interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in
question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might
be admissible on the oral cross examination of a witness.
2. Particular interrogatories to be submitted
On an application for leave to deliver interrogatories, the particular
interrogatories proposed to be delivered shall be submitted to the Court, and
that court shall decide within seven days from the day of filing of the said
application, in deciding upon such application, the court shall take into
account any offer, which may be made by the party sought to be interrogated to
deliver particulars, or to make admissions, or to produce documents relating
to the matters in question, or any of them, and leave shall be given as to such
only of the interrogatories submitted as the court shall consider necessary
either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs.”
The legitimate purpose of interrogatories is to obtain admissions. Hence there
can be no dispute about the valuable right of the parties to the suit to serve
interrogatories on the opposite party. However a reading of the Rules 1 & 2 of
Order 11 of C.P.C. itself makes clear that the leave shall be granted by the
Court only to such interrogatories as the Court considers necessary either for
disposing of the suit fairly or for saving costs. Therefore it is always open
to the Court to refuse to grant leave if the interrogatories served have no
reasonable connection with the matters in question. This view of mine is
fortified by the decisions in RAJ NARAIN v. INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI (AIR 1972 SC
1302), and LALINDA SHIPPING v. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT (1986 (2) ALT 648).
In the instant case, the suit is filed for injunction simplicitor and therefore
it is for the plaintiff to make out his prima facie title as well as possession
as on the date of the suit. A perusal of the interrogatories delivered by the
plaintiff shows that none of the said questions are relevant for disposing of
the suit fairly or for saving costs. As rightly observed by the Court below,
it is always open to the plaintiff to put the said questions to the defendants
in the cross-examination and there is no need to deliver interrogatories for
the said purpose.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below cannot be said to
have committed any error in declining to grant leave to deliver
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No
G. ROHINI, J.