Writ Petition No. 10113 of 2012. Case: Ms. Kishorilal Babulal Vs Ramlal Ganeshprasad Tiwari. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 10113 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Smt. Anjali Bajpai Dube, Adv. and For Respondents: V. D. Gunale, Adv. |
| Judges | Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, J. |
| Issue | Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) - Order 11 Rule 1 |
| Citation | AIR 2014 BOM 19 |
| Judgement Date | September 30, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
-
Heard Smt. Anjali Bajpai Dube, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr V.D. Gunale, learned Counsel for respondent No.1.
-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. At the request and by consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.
-
By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the original plaintiff has challenged the order dated 22.10.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur, below Exh. 144/D, in Special Civil Suit No.164 of 2006. By the said order, the learned Trial Judge rejected the application at Exh.144/D preferred by the original plaintiff seeking permission to deliver the interrogatories for the second time.
-
The instant writ petition involves a short point, viz. whether the interrogatories under Order 11, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "C.P.C.") be delivered to the same party second time or not?
-
Perused impugned order and the material on record. At the outset, it is to be noted that the learned Trial Judge has considered only legal aspect of Order 11, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. and has not considered interrogatories on merits. The Trial Judge held that the interrogatories cannot be delivered second time. Therefore, while deciding this issue, I restrict only to scope of Order 11, Rule 1 of the C.P.C.
-
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that in law, there is no bar to, or restriction on delivering interrogatories more than one time. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relied on proviso to Rule 1, Order 11 of C.P.C. He submitted that already the petitioner has delivered a set of interrogatories and, therefore, the Trial Judge has rightly disallowed the application to deliver interrogatories again.
-
The learned Trial Judge did not permit the petitioner to deliver the interrogatories second time by relying on proviso to rule 1 of Order 11 of the C.P.C. Rule 1 of Order 11 of the C.P.C. reads 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial