Vikas Jain vs Archana Jain And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 16926 P&H

                                                                          Page 1 of 3


113

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                             CHANDIGARH
                                                      CR-5957-2022
                                          DATE OF ORDER: 15.12.2022

Vikas Jain
                                                                .....Petitioner

                                          Vs.

Archana Jain and others
                                                                .....Respondents

CORAM:                HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA


Present:              Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.


Nidhi Gupta, J.

Prayer in the present Civil Revision Petition is for setting

aside order dated 06.09.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Rohtak whereby application of the petitioner-defendant No.1 filed under

Order 11 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for interrogatories has

been dismissed.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent

No.1-plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit seeking declaration as being owner in

possession of suit property by way of registered deeds, and is challenging the

validity of gift deed dated 09.11.2004 and Will dated 17.10.1998 whereby

suit property is purported to have been gifted/willed to defendants No.1 and

3 respectively.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1

vehemently states that the impugned order dismissing his application for

interrogatories is fundamentally incorrect and contrary to the substantive

1 of 3

provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel further states that the

interrogatories are very much relevant to the case and will help to resolve

the issue between the parties in a much quicker manner. It is submitted that

as many as 14 interrogatories which had direct bearing on facts and outcome

of the case were served upon the respondent No.1/plaintiff, answer to which

would have served the trial Court to come to the crux of the issue and resolve

the matter. It is further stated that a family settlement had been arrived at

between the parties in the year 1997 and 2001 pursuant to which certain

payments were made and received by respondent No.1/plaintiff and

therefore, answer to the interrogatories would have laid bare the whole

matter. In support, learned counsel relies upon judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi & Others Vs. Nirmala Devi & Others

(2011) 8 SCC 249.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Though learned counsel has argued very persuasively to

contend that the interrogatories would have enabled the learned Court

below to arrive at an expeditious decision in the Civil Suit and would have

cleared all issues, yet admittedly, even written statement has not yet been

filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1. As such, I am in concurrence with the

reasoning of the learned Court below that unless and until the stand of the

petitioner/defendant No.1 is made clear by way of his written statement, it

is not possible to decipher nexus of the interrogatories with the matter in

question. As per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Narain Vs.

Indira Nehru Gandhi (1972) 3 SCC 850, interrogatories served must have

reasonably close connection with matter in question.

2 of 3

Accordingly, I see no ground is made out to interfere with

the impugned order at this stage. The petitioner will be at liberty to file

interrogatories at subsequent stage, if so required. Dismissed.

15.12.2022                                            (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena                                                Judge


         Whether speaking/reasoned                    Yes
         Whether reportable                           Yes/No




                                   3 of 3