AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THE defendant -petitioners filed an application under Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, "the Code") for answering certain interrogatories by the plaintiffs. The same was declined by the trial court vide order dated 5.5.2011 which has been impugned in the present revision petition.
(2.) BRIEF facts may be noticed. The respondent -plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 18.6.2007 extended upto 30.4.2009. Prayer was also made for directing the defendants to execute the sale deed and deliver the vacant possession of the suit property. A further prayer for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner -defendants from alienating/transferring/mortgaging the suit property was also made. The suit was contested by the petitioners by filing reply. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant -petitioners filed an application under Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code for leave of the Court to deliver the interrogatories. The application was contested by the plaintiffs. The trial court vide impugned order dismissed the said application. Hence this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the interrogatories appended as Annexure P. 5 which had been submitted by the defendant -petitioners were essential for the decision of the case and the trial court erred in declining the prayer of the petitioners. He placed reliance upon decision of this Court in Major Singh v. Suresh Kumar, 2009(5) R.C.R. (Civil) 667.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not find any merit in the revision petition.;