Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S.P. CHATTERJEE AND ANOTHER versus DR. AJAI KHANNA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S.P. Chatterjee And Another v. Dr. Ajai Khanna - WRIT - A No. 6791 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2201 (11 February 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The owner of the premises in dispute is Dr. Ajai Khanna who moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ''U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972') for release of the accommodation in dispute.  The ground taken in the release application was that the landlord, who was settled in United States of America wants to settled in India dut to insecurity of lives of Indians in America in view of terrorist's attack etc.  

The release application was filed by Sri Shankar Lal, father of Dr. Ajai Khanna as attorney.  

During the pendency of the aforesaid case, the petitioner moved an application dated 13.7.2006 under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 34 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for interrogatories, which was rejected by the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court, Allahabad  vide order dated 7.11.2006.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 7.11.2006, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition  for quashing  of the impugned order dated 7.11.2006  passed by the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court, Allahabad, which has been appended as Annexure 4 to the writ petition and for a writ of mandamus  directing the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes  Court, Allahabad not to proceed further with the release case no. 31 of 2005 till the reply of the interrogatories made by the petitioner on 13.7.2006 is not replied by the landlord-respondent.

Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for discovery by interrogatories. According to this rule, plaintiff or defendnat in any suit may deliver interrogatories, in writing, by leave of the Court for the examination of the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties.

The Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court, Allahabad has dealt with the application for interrogatories moved by the petitioner and has held that the interrogatories are irrelevant for the purpose of adjudication of dispute.  The petitioner sought leave of the Court for following interrogatories:-

" 1.  Since when Dr. Ajai Khanna has taken a job at U.S.A?

   2. Since when he is residing at Santiago California ?

   3. What is the name of University in which he is employed, nature of his job

       and salary and perquisite in terms of Dollars and its value in terms of

       Indian currency?

   4. Whether he is permitted private practice if so that is his infrom from it?

   5. Whether he has pruchased any house at the place of his service or any-

       where in U.S.A either on full payment or on instalment basis either in

       his name or in the name of his wife ?

   6. Where wife of Dr. Ajai Khanna is employed, please name the institution

       her salary and perquisites?

   7. Whether she is allowed private practice? If so, her income from it.

   8. Whether Dr. Ajai Khanna intends to come to Allahabad for permanent

       settlement leaving his job at U.S.A and with a view to practice at

       Allahabad?

   9. What is their status in U.S.A whether workig there on work permit or

       obtained a green card or has he opted for citizenship?"

The Court below has held that all the aforesaid interrogatories are irrelevant for the purpose of present case. The relevant finding is as under :-

"&&&&mijksDr fdlh Hkh iz'u dk laca/k fjyht izkFkZuki= esa fn;s x;s vk/kkj ls ugha gS A fjyht izkFkZuki= vesfjdk esa vkradoknh geyksa ds Hk; ds vk/kkj ij fn;k x;k gs A vxj dksbZ vkneh Hk; o'k fdlh LFkku dks NksMuk pkgrk gS rks blds fy, mldh ukSdjh] osru ifjyfC/k;kW] vk; dk dksbZ egRo ugha gS A D;ksafd og vius tku dh lqj{kk ds fy, fdlh LFkku dks NksMrk gS A fjyht izkFkZuki= ds Onkjk blh fcUnq dks ns[kuk gs fd ;kph Onkjk crkbz xbZ vko';drk lnHkkoh gS vFkok ugha ,sls esa mlds irk] mlds ukSdjh dh vof/k] mlds osnu o ifjyfC/k;kW] mldh iRuh dh ukSdjh] vk; o mlds LVsVl ds ckjsa esa tkudkjh ds fy, iz'ukoyh ifjnRr djusa gsrq vkns'k nsusa dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gS A&&&"

 

Admittedly, in the instant case, the landlord is in U.S.A and the Court below has not granted leave to the petitioner.  It is upon judicious discretion of the Court to consider whether allowing the interrogatory would be helpful in taking a decision in the matter or not.  Even otherwise, the petitioner can establish his case by oral and documentary evidence.  If the landlord does not give any evidence in support of his case, his case would be liable to fail.  All these are subsequent proceedings, which have yet to take place and a decision has to be taken by the Court below after oral and documentary evidence is led by the parties.

Terrorists have no religion.  They are not bound by the boundaries of countries or nations or even States.  If a country is target of terrorist's attacks and a person does not feel security of his family's life in that country, he has the option to return to the country of his origin which cannot be termed as a mere desire.  Purpose of interrogatories is to get reply from the opposite party for the purpose of defence or reply by the other party.

Moreover, the impugned order is in the nature of inter locutory order. In my opinion, it has no bearing in the instant case as the parties have yet to lead their evidence in support of their respective cases.  The Court below has rightly held that the interrogatories are irrelevant for the purpose of the present case.

There is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned.  

For the reasons stated above, the writ petiion fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dated 11.2.2007

kkb


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.