Judgment: https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/vdzm/
Citation: 2025 KER 33579 : 2025 (5) KLR 90
Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice K. Babu
Case Number: O.P (C) No. 2794 of 2019; May 9, 2025
Parties:
- Petitioner: K.C. Sivasankara Panicker (Defendant No. 1)
- Respondents: K.C. Vasanthakumari alias K.C. Vasanthi (Plaintiff), Akhil Krishnan, Rathika Lakshmanan, K.C. Govinda Raj
Against the Order / Judgment dated in O.S. No. 42 of 2015 of Sub Court, Manjeri
Petitioner by Advs. R. Rajesh Kormath, K. Dilip
Respondents by Advs. Meena A., Vinod Ravindranath, K.C. Kiran, M.R. Mini, M. Devesh, Anish Antony Anathazhath, Thareeq Anver K., Nivedhitha Prem V.
Facts:
The case originates from a suit (O.S No. 42 of 2015) before the Sub Court, Manjeri, concerning the partition of properties belonging to the Kuttipurath Chelath Tharawad. The plaintiff, a member of the tharawad, sought partition and separate possession of her share in the plaint schedule properties, which were managed by her mother (defendant No. 2). A prior suit (O.S No. 76/1960) had resulted in a preliminary decree in 1970 and a final decree in 1971, allocating specific properties to the plaintiff, defendant No. 2, and defendant No. 1 (plaintiff’s uncle). The plaintiff alleged that defendant No. 1 fraudulently executed a gift deed (No. 4283/2012) in favor of his grandson (defendant No. 3), claiming sole ownership of properties in which the plaintiff had a share. The defendants contended that the final decree remained unexecuted and the properties were co-sharership properties. The plaintiff filed I.A No. 843/2019 seeking leave to deliver interrogatories to defendant No. 1, which was allowed by the Trial Court on October 15, 2019. Defendant No. 1 challenged this order, arguing that a prior similar application (I.A No. 255/2017) was dismissed as not pressed, the trial was over, and the interrogatories were irrelevant.
Issues:
- Whether the dismissal of the earlier application (I.A No. 255/2017) as not pressed barred the plaintiff from filing a subsequent application (I.A No. 843/2019) for interrogatories.
- Whether the interrogatories were relevant to the matters in question in the suit.
- Whether the Trial Court’s order allowing interrogatories at an advanced stage of trial was justified.
Arguments:
- Petitioner (Defendant No. 1): Argued that I.A No. 843/2019 was not maintainable due to the dismissal of the earlier application, the trial was concluded, and the interrogatories were irrelevant. Relied on Mohammed Master v. Abu Haji (1981 KLT 578) to argue that dismissal as not pressed implied consent to decide against the plaintiff.
- Respondent (Plaintiff): Contended that the dismissal of the earlier application did not bar a subsequent application based on changed circumstances (unavailability of final decree records). Argued that the interrogatories were relevant to establish defendant No. 1’s title to the property gifted to defendant No. 3 and were not a fishing expedition.
Holding:
The High Court dismissed the Original Petition, upholding the Trial Court’s order. Key findings:
- Subsequent Application Maintainable: The dismissal of I.A No. 255/2017 as not pressed did not bar I.A No. 843/2019, as it was filed on a changed cause of action (unavailability of final decree records). The court distinguished Mohammed Master, noting that the subsequent application was based on new circumstances.
- Relevance of Interrogatories: The interrogatories, which sought details about defendant No. 1’s title, possession, and actions regarding the disputed properties, were relevant to the matters in question (plaintiff’s claim to a share in the properties). They were not aimed at discovering exclusive evidence of the defendant’s case or conducting a roving inquiry.
- No Prejudice at Advanced Stage: Despite the trial being at an advanced stage, the court found no prejudice to defendant No. 1 in answering the interrogatories. The “test of prejudice” was applied, and the interrogatories were deemed necessary for fair disposal of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi:
- The power to allow interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 CPC should be exercised liberally to serve justice but with caution to prevent abuse. Interrogatories must relate to matters in question in the suit and not constitute a fishing expedition or seek exclusive evidence of the opponent’s case.
- A prior dismissal of an application as not pressed does not preclude a subsequent application on a new cause of action.
- The relevance of interrogatories and lack of prejudice to the answering party are key considerations, even at an advanced stage of trial.
Disposition:
The Original Petition was dismissed, and the Trial Court’s order dated October 15, 2019, allowing I.A No. 843/2019 was upheld. Defendant No. 1 was directed to answer the interrogatories.
Key Precedents Cited:
- Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi [(1972) 3 SCC 850]: Interrogatories must have a close connection to matters in question.
- P. Balan v. Central Bank of India, Calicut (1999 SCC OnLine Ker 184): Interrogatories should not be confined within narrow limits but exercised with care.
- Bhavans Vidya Mandir v. Shibu K.P. [2017 (1) KHC 498]: Interrogatories are limited to matters in question, not extending to cross-examination scope.
- Sreejith Varma v. Poonjar Koyikkal Royal Family Trust [2020 (4) KHC 363]: Courts must assess the necessity of interrogatories for fair disposal or cost-saving.