BHARAT INDUSTRIES Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dated 7.6.99. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib declined the prayer of M/s. Bharat Industries (defendant) for delivery of interrogatories to the plaintiff Punjab National Bank under order 11 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC.

(2.) Plaintiff-Bank filed suit for recovery of Rs. 3,63,181-00 against M/s. Bharat Industries and others under Order 34 CPC inclusive of interest and penal rate of interest upto the date of the filing of the suit i.e. 28.3.91 in the cash credit hypothecation limit account of defendant (M/s. Bharat Industries) and also for the recovery of further interest @ 19.25% per annum with quarterly rests and penal interest @ 2% per month with quarterly rests along with all costs, charges and expenses till actual and final realisation. It was prayed that the recovery be got made from the defendant jointly and severely by the sale of hypothecated goods and by the sale of mortgaged property. It was also prayed that if on sale of hypothecated goods and the sale of the mortgaged property, there remains some outstanding, they should be made liable personally for those outstanding and other properties belonging to them should also be made liable for the recovery of those outstanding.

(3.) It was alleged in this application under Order 11 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of leave to deliver interrogatories to the plaintiff bank that they had been submitting from time to time the relevant documents required by the bank in connection with the limit and sufficient property as well as stock etc, was with the plaintiff bank in the shape of primary security but the plaintiff bank did not produce entire records in the case. With this application was attached a questionaire in the form of interrogatories to be answered by the plaintiff bank. It was alleged that if the interrogatories are served upon the plaintiff bank, answer to them shall help the Court in reaching the truth and adjudication upon the controversies involved completely and effectively. If these interrogatories are allowed to be served on the plaintiff bank and answered, that would shorten the evidence to be led by the parties. Punjab National Bank (plaintiff) opposed this application saying that both the parties have already led their evidence and this application has been made belatedly. Questions mentioned in the questionnaire were put to the bank officials examined in this case as witnesses and, therefore, if these interrogatories are allowed to be served on the bank and answered, that would not serve any purpose.