Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Viraf Satarawala vs Khushru Satarawala ... on 24 April, 2025
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2025:RJ-JD:19821]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4470/2023
Viraf Satarawala S/o Shri Tehamatan Satarwala, Aged About 51
Years, Resident Of 192, Sher Villa, Shiv Road, Ratanada, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
Khushru Satarawala S/o Shri Tehamatan Satarawala, Resident Of
192, Sher Villa, Shiv Road, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
Presently Residing At Flat No. 2-E, Hongkong House, Melcolm
Baug, Parsi Colony, Jogeshwari West, S.v. Road, Mumbai 400
102
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Purohit.
Mr. Uttam Singh.
Mr. Subham Ojha.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Falgun Buch assisted by
Mr. Gopalkrishna Chhangani.
Mr. Vasu Dev Gaur.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
24/04/2025
1. Heard the parties.
2. Respondent Khushru Satarawala, the full brother of the writ
petitioner, brought a suit for partition of the movable and
immovable property of the family left by the parents.
3. By the impugned order dated 14.11.2022 passed in Civil
Original Suit No. 102/2020, the learned trial Judge besides
disposing of other petitions also disposed of an application under
Order XI Rule 12 and 14 read with Section 151 CPC and issued
direction against the petitioner to file affidavit giving information
regarding receipt of money from postal department, LIC and
[2025:RJ-JD:19821] (2 of 4) [CW-4730/2025]
mutual funds invested in different companies including in shares
by the parents. The petitioner was further directed to make it
clear that after death of father, from which Department, what
amount was obtained by the petitioner and whether the amount
was received as nominee of the parents or the parents had
executed a transfer document in favour of the petitioner. The
petitioner was further directed to inform whether any ornaments
left by the mother was received by him or not. If it was received,
details of the same was also asked to be provided.
4. It is not disputed that father had executed a Will whereunder
money in the Post Office Savings Account, Fixed Deposit Account
and some jeweelery were proposed to be given to Khushru, the
respondent herein. Thus unless the aforesaid information was
there on the record, no effective decree could have been passed in
the suit as to whether those properties were to be partitioned or
not.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the referred
provisions of Order XI CPC were not applicable or attracted in the
facts and circumstances of this case, rather the provisions were
misconstrued and direction was made contrary to law.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that infact the
petitioner was nominee in Savings Account etc. as well as in the
mutual funds and received money in the capacity of a nominee.
Learned counsel submits that the trial Court has relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharbati Devi & Ors.
Vs. Smt. Usha Devi & Ors. reported in AIR 1984 SC 346 for its
conclusion that status of a nominee under Insurance Act is only to
receive money after death of the original policy holder and only for
[2025:RJ-JD:19821] (3 of 4) [CW-4730/2025]
the reason that nominee has received the money, he does not get
absolute right over that, rather the nominee has to inform other
co-sharers for proper distribution of that amount. Order XI Rule 1
relates to interrogatories which should be in question and answer
form and can be asked by the parties only with the leave of the
Court. Rule 2 provides about furnishing details and particulars of
the interrogatories. Rule 3 relates to cost of interrogatories and
Rule 4 provides that Form No. 2 shall be used for interrogatories.
Some of the other subsequent rules are objection to the
interrogatories and striking out the interrogatories as well as
exhibit in such interrogatories.
7. Evidently, in the case on hand, no interrogatory was asked
from the petitioner which could have been answered in positive or
negative or by some explanation, rather, in the case on hand,
certain information was called for under Rule 12 and 14. The said
provision under Order XI Rule 12, 13 and 14 are being produced
below:-
"12. Application for discovery of documents.-
Any party may, without filing any affidavit, apply to
the Court for an order directing any other party to
any suit to make discovery on oath of the documents
which are or have been in his possession or power,
relating to any matter in question therein. On the
hearing of such application the Court may either
refuse or adjourn the same, if satisfied that such
discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that
stage of the suit, or make such order, either generally
or limited to certain classes of documents, as may, in
its discretion be thought fit:
Provided that discovery shall not be ordered
when and so far as the Court shall be of opinion that
[2025:RJ-JD:19821] (4 of 4) [CW-4730/2025]
it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the
suit or for saving costs.
13. Affidavit of documents.- The affidavit to be
made by a party against whom such order as is
mentioned in the last preceding rule has been made,
shall specify which (if any) of the documents therein
mentioned he objects to produce, and it shall be in
Form No. 5 in Appendix C, with such variations as
circumstances may require.
14. Production of documents. - It shall be lawful
for the Court, at any time during the pendency of any
suit, to order the production by any party thereto,
upon oath of such of the documents in his possession
or power, relating to any matter in question in such
suit, as the Court shall think right; and the Court may
deal with such documents, when produced, in such
manner as shall appear just."
8. By the impugned direction, the Court asked the petitioner to
produce document of Postal Department, LIC and other mutual
funds to show as to what amount was withdrawn or taken or
accepted by the petitioner or not. Whether ornaments of the
mother was with the petitioner or not, was to be answered by the
petitioner on affidavit.
9. Considering the nature of the suit, the required information
is not against the mandate of Order XI CPC. Hence, the effect of
the impugned order could not leads to manifest miscarriage of
justice. Therefore, this writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of
any merit.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
21-sumer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
