Anil Sharma & Others vs Mahesh Dass Thru Lrs & Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 4531 Del

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                   Judgment Pronounced on: 15.09.2011

+ CS(OS) 1589/2000

ANIL SHARMA AND ORS.                  ..... Plaintiffs
              Through Mr. V.C. Rishi, Adv.

                    versus

MAHESH DASS THRU LR'S AND ORS.        ..... Defendants
             Through Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv.
             Dr. Arun Mohan, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Shalini
             Kapoor, Adv. for D-3 to 19.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                       No.

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                No.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported               No.
   in Digest?

V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)

IA............/2011(to be numbered) (filed by the plaintiffs under Order 11 R.7 r/w. S.151 & 114 of CPC) IA............/2011 (to be numbered) (filed by plaintiffs u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 11 Rule 7 r/w S. 151 & 114 CPC)

1. Vide order dated 26.05.2011 passed in IA 8737/2011,

the plaintiffs were directed to answer the interrogatories which

formed part of the application, unless they claimed that one or

more of them were scandalous or irrelevant or were not

exhibited bona fide for the purpose of this suit, or were not

sufficiently material or they claimed any privilege or felt that

there were some other reasonable ground for not answering

those interrogatories. Vide IA.......................(to be numbered),

filed under Order XI Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the

plaintiffs have sought the setting aside of the order dated

26.05.2011 and striking down the interrogatories. The other IA

has been filed for condonation of delay in filing application

under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Rule 6 & 7 of Order 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure

are relevant for the purpose of these applications and read as

under:-

6. Objections to interrogatories by answer.- Any objection to answering any interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit, or that the matters inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage[or on the ground of privilege or any other ground], may be taken in the affidavit in answer.

7. Setting aside and striking out interrogatories.- Any interrogatories may be set aside on the ground that they have been exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously, or struck out on the ground that they are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous :

and any application for this purpose may be made within seven days after service of the interrogatories."

3. It would thus be seen that the interrogatories can be

set aside by the Court if it finds that they have been exhibited

unreasonably or vexatiously. They can also be struck down on

the ground that they are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or

scandalous.

4. As regards the first interrogatory, I find that though in

para 11 of the amended plaint, it has been alleged that

notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act

invoking the emergent provisions were issued vide

No.F.9(5)/79-L&B(i) dated 19.1.1990, there is no reference to

separate notification one under Section 4 and the other under

Sections 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. Vide first

interrogatory, the defendants want the plaintiffs to answer as to

whether it is a fact or not that for acquisition of the suit

property, notification under Section 4 bearing No.F.9(5)/79-

L&B(i) was issued on 19.2.1990 followed by notification No.

F.9(5)/79-L&B(ii)/13182 on 25.05.1990. Since, not only there

is difference in the date of the first notification given in para 11

of the amended plaint and in interrogatory No.1, the plaintiffs

have not at all referred to the notification under Sections 6 &

17 of the Land Acquisition Act, the first interrogatory needs to

be answered by the plaintiffs and the same is not covered

under any of the grounds mentioned in Rule 7 of Order 11 of

the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. The second interrogatory relates to the award stated to

have been passed on 22.05.1992, awarding compensation of

Rs.20.96 lakhs in respect of the suit property. The contention

of the learned senior counsel for the defendants is that no one

is likely to pay more than Rs.3 crores which the plaintiffs claim

to have paid to the defendants for the suit land when it hasd

been acquired by the Government for a compensation of about

Rs.21 lakhs. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that

receipt of the amount paid by the plaintiffs was acknowledged

by defendants No.1 to 19 in the Agreement to Sell. This,

however, is disputed by the learned counsel for the defendants

who states that in fact only a sum of Rs.50 lakhs was paid to

the defendants, after the award had been made. I, however,

need not go into the truthfulness or otherwise of these

statements since, I feel that if the plaintiffs have a knowledge

with respect to the award subject matter of interrogatory No.2,

there is no reason why they should not answer this

interrogatory. I, therefore, find no valid objections to the

plaintiffs answering interrogatory No.2.

6. Vide third interrogatory, the defendants want to know

the date and place at which the agreement referred in para 10

of the amended plaint was entered into between the plaintiffs

No.1 & 2 and defendants No.1 to 19 and what were the

documents executed at that time. I find that in para 10 of the

amended plaint, it has been stated that defendants No.1 to 19

agreed to sell land in dispute when Rs.5 crores were offered to

them by plaintiffs No.1 & 2 for the land along with the

structures. The date of the alleged agreement, however, has

not been given either in para 10 or elsewhere in the plaint.

There is no reason why the plaintiffs should not give the date of

the oral agreement pleaded by them as also the place at which

the agreement is alleged to have been entered into between

plaintiffs No.1 & 2 and defendants No.1 to 19. As regards the

documents, if any, executed at the time of the Agreement to

Sell, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that they have

filed the Power of Attorney executed in the year 1991 as also

the documents executed in the years 1994 onwards. I,

however, notice that in para 10 of the amended plaint, the

plaintiffs have claimed having made payment of Rs.2.95 crores

between September, 1987 to July, 1989, in addition to payment

of Rs.5 lakhs in the year 1992. Therefore, I see no reason why

the plaintiffs should not tell the Court as to what documents, if

any, were executed at the time defendants No.1 to 19,

according to them agreed to sell the suit land to plaintiffs No.1

& 2. Therefore, I find no valid objection to the plaintiffs

answering interrogatory No.3.

7. Vide 4th interrogatory, the defendants want a

confirmation from the plaintiffs that no payment was made to

them by the plaintiffs by cheque, between 19.02.1990 and

02.01.1994. There can be no valid objection to the plaintiffs

answering this valid question. If any payment has been made

to them by cheque, they must necessarily give particulars of

those cheques including their date of encashment and in case

no payment is made to them by cheque, they must say so in

answer to the interrogatory. Hence, the objection with respect

to interrogatory No.4 has no justification.

8. Vide interrogatory No.5, the defendants want the

plaintiffs to give particulars of withdrawal of the amount of

Rs.2.95 crores which they claim to have paid to defendants

No.1 to 19 between September 1987 to July, 1989. Since the

receipt of the amount of Rs.2.95 crores is being disputed by the

defendants, though the case of the plaintiffs is that the receipt

has been acknowledged in the agreement, the plaintiffs must

answer this interrogatory so that the alleged payment can be

investigated.

9. Vide interrogatory No.6, the defendants want the

plaintiffs to disclose the mode by which payment of Rs.50 lakhs

referred in para 15 of the amended plaint was made by them.

In case the payment was made in cash, they want the plaintiffs

to give particulars such as the entries in the bank from where

the money was withdrawn, receipt for the money and the

documents executed at the time of payment. I find that in para

15 of the amended plaint, the plaintiffs have pleaded payment

of Rs.50,99,000/- between 03.01.1994 to 05.01.1994. The

mode of payment, however, has not been disclosed in the

plaint. Hence, the plaintiffs must answer this interrogatory as

well and disclose as to what was the mode of payment. In case

the payment was made by cash and was withdrawn from one or

more banks, they should also disclose from which bank it was

withdrawn and what documents, if any, were executed at the

time of the Agreement to Sell.

10. As regards interrogatory No.7, the learned senior

counsel appearing for the defendants states that he does not

press for answer to this interrogatory.

11. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that the

defendants have not delivered interrogatories on the plaintiffs

after the order was passed by this Court on 26.05.2011. Mr.

Arun Mohan, learned senior counsel for the defendants, states

that since the interrogatories are contained in the application

itself and advance copy of the application was served on the

plaintiffs, there was no necessity of separate delivery of

interrogatories on the plaintiffs. I also feel that the object is

duly achieved when the plaintiffs receive the copy of the

application contained the interrogatories to be answered by

them and therefore the plea has no merit.

For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in the

applications and the same are hereby dismissed.

CS(OS) 1589/2000 & IA 7137/2000(O.39 R.1 & 2 CPC)

The answer to interrogatories No.1 to 6 will be given by

each of the plaintiffs in terms of the order dated 26.05.2011

within four weeks from today.

Renotify for framing of issues on 14th November, 2011.

(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 'sn'