Decided on February 06,1978



- (1.) The petitioner is the sole defendant in Money Suit No. 84 of 1976 pending in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Jajpur. The opposite party's suit is for recovery of Rs. 11,77,090/- with pendente lite and future interest and the cost of the suit. The said amount is claimed on the basis of certain allegations made in the plaint based on alleged contracts between the plaintiff and the defendant. In the suit the defendant filed a petition under Order 11, Rule 1 C. P. C. praying for an order of the court directing the plaintiff to answer in writing the interrogatories filed by the defendant. The plaintiff filed its answer to the said interrogatories without waiting for any order of the court to that effect. Thereafter the defendant filed a petition under Order 11, Rule 11, C. P. C. alleging that the answer to the above-mentioned interrogatories furnished by the plaintiff were incomplete, insufficient and/or ambiguous and that the plaintiff had incorporated irrelevant materials in the said answers. On the said allegations the defendant prayed for a direction to the plaintiff to answer the said interrogatories in a more clear, explicit and specific manner, omitting the irrelevant portions therein. On the dismissal of the last-mentioned petition, the defendant has filed this Civil Revision in this Court.
(2.) Mr. G. Rath, the learned counsel for the opposite party, at the outset urged that the civil revision was not maintainable as by the impugned order the court did not adjudicate any right or obligation of the parties in controversy, and so it could not be said that 'a case had been decided' by that order within the meaning of S. 115, C. P. C. In support of his submission he cited the decision reported in AIR 1970 SC 406 (Baldevdas v. Filmistan Distributors). The aforesaid decision was rendered before the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code in the year 1976. By the said amendment S. 115 of the Code has been amended by inserting a proviso to the main section and adding sub-sec. (2) with an explanation of the expression "any case which has been decided". It has been conceded by Mr. Rath that the provisions of S. 115 as amended apply to this case. The impugned order having been made in course of the suit would come within the meaning of the said expression as per the said explanation, and so Mr. Rath's objection to the maintainability of the Civil Revision on the above-mentioned ground cannot stand. By adding the aforesaid explanation to S. 115 the scope and ambit of a revision in this Court have been widened, and the limitation put on the expression 'any case which has been decided' in S. 115 by the decision reported in AIR 1970 SC 406 and some other decisions would no longer hold good in view of the amendment of the said section.
(3.) In this Court Mr. Patnaik, the learned counsel for the petitioner, confined his objection to the answers furnished by the plaintiff to questions Nos. 1 to 8 and 12 and 13. It was contended by Mr. Patnaik that the answer given by the plaintiff to the said questions suffer from various defects as mentioned in the petition under Order 11, Rule 11 filed in the court below by the petitioner, and so that court acted illegally in rejecting the said petition. The court below on a consideration of the questions and answers and on hearing the counsel for both the parties finds that the plaintiff has given elaborate answers to all the questions posed by the defendant and has not omitted to answer any of those questions, nor has it answered the same insufficiently. It, of course finds that while furnishing such answers to the interrogatories the plaintiff has narrated certain facts which may not be strictly relevant for the purpose of the suit with a view to safeguard its own interest.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.