Mahesh Bhagwati, J.@mdashBy way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dt. 24.02.2012, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, dismissed the application filed under Order 11 Rule 1 of CPC. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case, in nub, are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents in the Court of District Judge, Metropolitan on 20.07.2011, together with an application of temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner plaintiff filed an application and delivered the interrogatories of which the reply was required to be sought for from the respondent No. 6. The learned trial Court gainsaid to grant leave and dismissed the application under Order 11 Rule 1 of CPC observing that the respondent No. 5 Smt. Manita Jain had answered all these questions in his written statement of defence.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the respondent No. 5 landlord rented out the shop to the husband of petitioner-plaintiff and after the death of her husband, she engaged respondent No. 2 Tarsem Jain, who happens to be her son, on the shop for assistance, but now he has occupied the shop and obstructs her entry therein. Despite her strenuous efforts, the respondent No. 2 did not vacate nor handed over the possession of the shop to his mother petitioner-plaintiff. Learned counsel further canvassed that the respondent No. 2 Tarsem Jain has joined hands with the respondent No. 6 landlord and it is the reason that respondent No. 6 has been continuously stating that this shop was never let out to the husband of the petitioner-plaintiff but from the beginning it was in the possession, occupation and use of respondent No. 2, the son of petitioner-plaintiff. Learned counsel also argued that the respondent No. 6 has suppressed so many facts, the answers of which are required to be discovered and placed on record, hence, she has delivered the interrogatories to be answered by the respondent No. 6 for the purpose of discovery and investigation of facts.
4. It is relevant to record that for the just decision of the petition, I need to reproduce the provisions of Order 11 Rule 1 of CPC, which are as under:-
1. Discovery by interrogatories.- In any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories in writing for examination of the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties and such interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of such persons is required to answer:
Provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same party without an order for that purpose;
Provided also that interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness.
5. A bare reading of proviso to rule 1 tangibly suggests that any interrogatory, which does not relate to any matter in issue, shall be deemed to be irrelevant, for which the answer is not required to be sought for. If we put a glance on the interrogatories, we find that first question is related to as to when the shop No. 7 was constructed?; the second question is as to whom this shop was first of all let out?; third, as to whether this shop was ever let out to late Amrit lal?; so and so forth. These questions are not at all related to the matter in issue. There is not even a whisper of these questions in the plaint. It is totally an irrelevant question to be asked as to when was the shop constructed by the respondent No. 6?; how much money was spent on construction of the same and?; how many workers and mesons worked during the construction?; Again, it is not relevant to be asked as to whether the shop was ever rented out to the deceased Amrit lal or not? When the respondent No. 6 has unequivocally and categorically supplied written statement of defence stating that the shop in question was let out to respondent No. 2 Tarsem Jain right from the beginning and he had been in possession and occupation of the shop in question, it was not obligation for the respondent No. 6 to disclose as to when this shop was constructed and to whom first of all it was let out. Neither, it is the case of the petitioner-plaintiff nor these questions are related to the matter in issue. The respondent No. 6 has furnished the reply in detail and after the perusal of the written statement of defence, I do not find it necessary that these interrogatories should be delivered to the respondent No. 6 for furnishing their answers. The learned trial Court has rightly gainsaid to grant leave to deliver the interrogatories to the respondent No. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is found to be just and proper. It is no where mentioned in the plaint that the respondent No. 2 Tarsem Jain had joined hands with the respondent No. 6 and it was the reason that he denied late Amrit lal to have been his tenant in the shop in question. In view thereof, the writ petition is found to be totally devoid of substance and the same deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.
6. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed. Consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed.
