A.N. Jindal, J. - (1.) THIS petition assails the order dated 19.8.2009 (Annexure P6) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jind, whereby the application filed by the Respondent -Plaintiff (herein referred as, 'the Plaintiff') to serve interrogatories upon the Petitioner -Defendant (herein referred as, 'the Defendant') was allowed.
(2.) THE Plaintiff had applied for seeking leave to serve interrogatories upon the Defendant which was granted. The answers to the interrogatories made by the Defendants were vague, therefore, the court vide impugned order called upon the Defendant to give detail list of the vendees to whom they had sold the properties or the same exchanged hands. It was further ordered that on failure to furnish the list, the application filed by the Defendants under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure shall be deemed to have been dismissed on the next date of hearing. The application stands allowed accordingly. From the expression of the impugned order, it transpires that the procedure adopted by the court is not correct. Order XI Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: 11. Order to answer or answer further -Where any person interrogated omits to answer, or answers insufficiently, the party interrogating may apply to the court for an order requiring him to answer, or to answer further, as the case may be. And an order may be made requiring him to answer, or to answer further, either by affidavit or by viva voce examination, as the Court may direct.
(3.) THE Petitioners being the vendees were in the knowledge of the sale deeds. Father of the Defendant No. 1 and husband of the Defendant No. 2 having knowledge of the sale deeds could duly explain the details of the sale deeds as well as the names of the vendees, but the vague reply has been submitted by them which was not expected from them. On one side they are claiming to get the plaint rejected by moving an application under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure for want of impleadment of necessary parties and on the other side, they do not want to disclose the names of the vendees to whom the Plaintiffs should implead parties. Thus, the trial court was right in directing the Defendants to give detailed list of the vendees of the sale deeds. Since the court could further ask the Defendants to answer the interrogatories by way of affidavit or by way of examination, therefore, the court also should have adopted the course as envisaged under Order XI Rule 11 of CPC.;