- (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the Order dated December 5,1992 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar directing the plaintiff to deliver interrogatories for the examination of the defendant-petitioner.
(2.) THE non-petitioner had filed the suit against the petitioner Interrogatories on the ground that defendant No. l has parted with the suit premises in favour of defendant No. 2 and that defendant No. 1 had acquired another shop in the new market. THE defendant in their written statement had denied the allegation regarding parting with possession of the suit premises on the ground that both the firms are joint family Firms and members of the joint family are Partners of the two Firms. Regarding the allotment of new shop in the new market, it was stated by the defendant that it is acquired only for additional work and which is owned by him as one of the partnres. THE plaintiff in his rejoinder pleaded that the new shop has been let out to third party by taking premium. THE name of the parties in whose favour the new shop was let out was Firm Omprakash Pawan Kumar. On the pleadings of the parties, Issues were framed. Relevant for the present purpose are Issues No. 2 and 3 which requires enquiry into comoparative hardship and satisfaction of plaintiffs need by partial evication, in case decree is passed and issue No. 6 which related to sub-letting of the suit shop. After issues were framed, plaintiffs sought to serve on defendant certain interrogatories, fifteen in number, which were stated to be relevant for the enquiry on the various issues. The trial court by its impugned order allowed the plaintiff to serve interrogatories No. 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 12 and 13 and prayer for serving interrogatories in respect of the rest of the items was disallowed. The learned coitnsel for the petitioner contends that the interrogatories which have been permitted to be served on him are not relevant for the purpose of issues between the parties and therefore, the trial court has acted wholly without jurisdiction and has acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in granting permission to serve the interrogatories. He also contended that the matter which can be provided by evidence otherwise cannot be made subject-matter of interrogatories. Having perused the pleadings, copies of which were furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that both the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not merit acceptance. So long as the interrogatories sought to be served, are relating to and relevant to matters in question having reasonable close connection, the same may be permitted and the mere fact that those facts can be proved by other evidence is no ground for refusing the permission to serve interrogatories. In this connection reference may be made to Jamaitrai Bishansarup vs. Rai Bahadur Motilal Chamaria (1) wherein it has been observed as under : - "interrogatories cannot be disallowed nearly on the ground that the party interrogating has other means of proving the facts in question since one legitimate purpose of interrogatories is to obtain admission. "
(3.) THE aforesaid view amply supports the conclusion, which I have arrived at. Examining in that light, I am of the opinion that the interrogatories which have been permitted to be served on the defendant are relevant and are closely connection to the facts which are related to Issues No. 2, 3, and 6 and it cannot be said that the trial court has committed any error in passing the impugned Order. In view of decision on merits, I need not enter into the question whether an order under O. ll R. l. C. P. C. , refusing or permitting to serve interrogatories is within the perview of term 'case decided' in view of explanation of S. 115 C. P. C. The revision is dismissed with no order as to costs. . ;