Full Text
Translation output
f $-30 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C.R.P. 17/2016
RANBIR SINGH BAWA
Petitioner
Through Mr.Vivek Srivastava, Advocate.
C.R.P. 17/2016
RANBIR SINGH BAWA
Petitioner
Through Mr.Vivek Srivastava, Advocate.
VERSUS
ANIL KUMAR «&ORS Respondents
Through Nemo.
- CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
03.02.2016 C.M. No.3930/2016 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Application disposed of.
Through Nemo.
- CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
03.02.2016 C.M. No.3930/2016 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Application disposed of.
C.R.P. 17/2016 & C.M.No.3929/2016 (Stay)
Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 01.12.2015 vide which the application filed by the defendant under Order 12 Rule 1 of the CPC seeking enlisting of certain interrogatories had been declined. The list of interrogatories which the defendant had proposed qua the plaintiffs are enumerated in para 13 of his application. They read as under:-
(i) Whether Shri Naresh Kumar was the owner of any premises hearing the address C-IO/B, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi during his lifetime?
(ii) Whether property NO. C-10 is a single property which was only owned by Shri Gain Chand during his life time?
(Hi) Whether Shri Naresh Kumar has become a co-owner inproperty
No. C-10 only after the death ofShri Gian Chand?
2016:DHC:8770 1/ (iv) Whether the defendant has been a tenant only in respect ofone portion/office space in property No. C-10, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi?
(v) Whether Shri Naresh Kumar has let out any portion of the property including C-IO/IB, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi to the defendant?
(vi) Whether any rent note/rent agreement has been executedbetween
ShriNaresh Kumar and the defendant regarding thealleged letting?
(vii) Whether any rent receipt/counter folio exists for the alleged tenancy created byShri Naresh Kumar infavour ofthe defendant?
(viii) Whether any surrender note/letter has been issued by the defendant in the year 2000 when he allegedly surrendered the premises to Shri Naresh Kumar?
(ix) Whether you have any documentary evidence with you to establish that the defendant was ever a tenant under Shri Naresh
Kumar in respect ofthe premises other than the suitproperty?
(x) Whether it is correct that during the lifetime ofShri Gian Chand his family member including Shri Naresh Kumar were collecting the rent ofpremisesfrom the defendant on his behalf?
Record shows that the present suit was a suit for possession and damages qua property bearing private No. C-4, in property bearing No.
C-10/4, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi which had been leased out to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/-. Written statement was filed which was subsequently amended. The contents of the written statement have been perused.
An additional issue was also framed. The additional issue reads herein as under:-
"Whether 10/IB andC-4 are one andthe samepremises? OPD"
The plaintiffs did not lead any evidence on the additional issue.
The defendant led his evidence. It was thereafter that the present application had been filed seeking permission to get the interrogatories answered by the plaintiffs.
On a specific query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what he would like to elicit from the plaintiffs in terms of the interrogatories which have been proposed in the application, his submission is that Naresh Kumar could not have leased out the suit property to him; Naresh Kumar is the son of Gian Chand who was the owner of the property. Vehement submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant being that the suit is bad for the reason that it was Naresh Kumar who had created the lease in favour ofthe defendant and he did not have any authority to do so at that point of time as his father Gian Chand was alive and the property admittedly at that point of time was owned by Gian Chand. On a query putto the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant as to whether this finds mention as defence in his amended written statement, he has drawn attention to the amended written statement; there is nota whisper of such a like defence raised in the amended written statement. Para 2 of the amended written statement has been adverted to but at the cost of repetition, there is nothing which is now argued. Moreover, the Trial Court had noted the law on interrogatories in the correct perspective. An application under
Order 11 Rule 1 ofthe CPC may be permitted and the whole purpose behind enlisting of interrogatories is to shorten the litigation and to
L bring it to a close early; in this case, it only appears to prolong the litigation as even after the additional issue had been framed as way back as on 08.07.2013, the present application seeking enlisting of interrogatories was filed by the defendant in the year 2015. The interrogatories even otherwise are not relevant for deciding the issue in dispute. It appears that the defendant is trying to enlarge his defence and pick up his defence which was otherwise not raised in the written statement.
In this background, impugned order suffers from no infirmity.
This petition is an abuse ofthe process ofthe Co^irt. Dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.
FEBRUARY 03,2016 A INDERMEET KAUR, J
Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 01.12.2015 vide which the application filed by the defendant under Order 12 Rule 1 of the CPC seeking enlisting of certain interrogatories had been declined. The list of interrogatories which the defendant had proposed qua the plaintiffs are enumerated in para 13 of his application. They read as under:-
(i) Whether Shri Naresh Kumar was the owner of any premises hearing the address C-IO/B, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi during his lifetime?
(ii) Whether property NO. C-10 is a single property which was only owned by Shri Gain Chand during his life time?
(Hi) Whether Shri Naresh Kumar has become a co-owner inproperty
No. C-10 only after the death ofShri Gian Chand?
2016:DHC:8770 1/ (iv) Whether the defendant has been a tenant only in respect ofone portion/office space in property No. C-10, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi?
(v) Whether Shri Naresh Kumar has let out any portion of the property including C-IO/IB, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi to the defendant?
(vi) Whether any rent note/rent agreement has been executedbetween
ShriNaresh Kumar and the defendant regarding thealleged letting?
(vii) Whether any rent receipt/counter folio exists for the alleged tenancy created byShri Naresh Kumar infavour ofthe defendant?
(viii) Whether any surrender note/letter has been issued by the defendant in the year 2000 when he allegedly surrendered the premises to Shri Naresh Kumar?
(ix) Whether you have any documentary evidence with you to establish that the defendant was ever a tenant under Shri Naresh
Kumar in respect ofthe premises other than the suitproperty?
(x) Whether it is correct that during the lifetime ofShri Gian Chand his family member including Shri Naresh Kumar were collecting the rent ofpremisesfrom the defendant on his behalf?
Record shows that the present suit was a suit for possession and damages qua property bearing private No. C-4, in property bearing No.
C-10/4, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi which had been leased out to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/-. Written statement was filed which was subsequently amended. The contents of the written statement have been perused.
An additional issue was also framed. The additional issue reads herein as under:-
"Whether 10/IB andC-4 are one andthe samepremises? OPD"
The plaintiffs did not lead any evidence on the additional issue.
The defendant led his evidence. It was thereafter that the present application had been filed seeking permission to get the interrogatories answered by the plaintiffs.
On a specific query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what he would like to elicit from the plaintiffs in terms of the interrogatories which have been proposed in the application, his submission is that Naresh Kumar could not have leased out the suit property to him; Naresh Kumar is the son of Gian Chand who was the owner of the property. Vehement submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant being that the suit is bad for the reason that it was Naresh Kumar who had created the lease in favour ofthe defendant and he did not have any authority to do so at that point of time as his father Gian Chand was alive and the property admittedly at that point of time was owned by Gian Chand. On a query putto the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant as to whether this finds mention as defence in his amended written statement, he has drawn attention to the amended written statement; there is nota whisper of such a like defence raised in the amended written statement. Para 2 of the amended written statement has been adverted to but at the cost of repetition, there is nothing which is now argued. Moreover, the Trial Court had noted the law on interrogatories in the correct perspective. An application under
Order 11 Rule 1 ofthe CPC may be permitted and the whole purpose behind enlisting of interrogatories is to shorten the litigation and to
L bring it to a close early; in this case, it only appears to prolong the litigation as even after the additional issue had been framed as way back as on 08.07.2013, the present application seeking enlisting of interrogatories was filed by the defendant in the year 2015. The interrogatories even otherwise are not relevant for deciding the issue in dispute. It appears that the defendant is trying to enlarge his defence and pick up his defence which was otherwise not raised in the written statement.
In this background, impugned order suffers from no infirmity.
This petition is an abuse ofthe process ofthe Co^irt. Dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.
FEBRUARY 03,2016 A INDERMEET KAUR, J
JUDGMENT