Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 1 of 5
14 CS SCJ/1465/2024
DLCT030054922024
ST. STEPHENS CHURCH
Vs. SHAKUNTALA LUKA
19.09.2026
Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Navin Gupta and Ms. Nancy, Ld. Counsel for the
defendants along with defendant no. 4.
IA/1/26 —Application under Order XI Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
1. The application filed by the defendants under Order XI Rules 1 & 2
CPC, seeking directions to the plaintiffs to furnish information/answers
and to produce documents in response to the interrogatories set out in
Annexure DA, has been taken up for disposal.
2. Mr. Navin Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the defendants, advances the
following submissions:
2.1 None of the office-bearers of plaintiff no. 2/Delhi Diocesan Trust
Association, have been shown as directors on the portal of Ministry of
Corporate Affairs (MCA). As per the status report filed by the Registrar of
Companies before Ld. District Judge-07 in CS No. 10181/2016, Rev. Dr.
Paul Swaroop has also not been shown as a director of plaintiff no. 2.
2.2 The plaintiffs claim to have acquired the suit property pursuant to a
declaration dated 16.01.1951 executed by the Indian Church Trustees in
favour of plaintiff no. 2/Trust Association. According to the defendants,
the said declaration is forged and fabricated and is also insufficiently
stamped, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 33 to 35 of Indian
Stamp Act, 1899.
2.3 The defendants are not pressing the other interrogatories contained
-- 1 of 5 --
2 of 5
in Annexure DA and are restricting the present application to
interrogatories at serial nos. (iii) & (iv). The said interrogatories relate to
— (i) execution of any document concerning the allotment of the suit
property to the defendants’ predecessor-in-interest, late Rev. M. S. Luka;
and (ii) notices if any, served by the plaintiffs seeking vacation of the suit
property during the period from 11.12.2009 to 31.02.2024.
2.4 The said interrogatories are necessary for clarifying the pleadings
and for a fair determination of the controversy in the present suit.
3. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs, opposes the
application and submits the following:
3.1 The defendants have already withdrawn the other interrogatories
and are now pressing interrogatories at serial nos. (iii) & (iv). Even these
interrogatories fall beyond the scope of pleadings and amount to a fishing
and roving inquiry.
3.2 The interrogatories at serial nos. (iii) & (iv) are essentially in the
nature of cross examination. The matters which are required to be put to
the witnesses during cross examination cannot be introduced through the
mechanism of interrogatories.
3.3 The present application is misconceived and inconsistent with the
scope, object and purpose of Order XI CPC.
4. I have heard the submissions at length and perused the record
carefully. The provisions of Order XI Rule 1 CPC are intended to curtail
evidence, thereby expediting trial of the suit and saving time of the court
and cost of litigation. The object of interrogatories is not only to discover
facts but also to obtain admissions on material issues, so as to obviate the
necessity of proving such facts through evidence1 .
1 Micromax Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. CS (OS) 2269/2010.
-- 2 of 5 --
3 of 5
5. It is pertinent to note that the defendants have withdrawn all the
interrogatories contained in Annexure DA except those at serial nos. (iii)
& (iv).
6. Interrogatory no. (iii) seeks information as to whether any document
was executed regarding allotment of the suit property in favour of late Rev.
M. S. Luka and interrogatory no. (iv) seeks information as to whether any
written notice was served upon the defendants to vacate the suit property
during the period from 11.12.2009 to 13.02.2024.
7. As regards interrogatory no. (iii), the plaintiffs have already pleaded
in paragraph 3 of the plaint that late Rev. M. S. Luka was provided
residential accommodation for himself and his family members without
payment of rent. The defendants, on the other hand, claim that they came
in possession of the suit property through Bishop Maqbul Caleb in 1985,
who handed over possession in his personal capacity and not pursuant to
any policy of the trust for providing accommodation to its employees. The
defendants further claim to have remained in continuous and uninterrupted
possession of the suit property since 1985 and asserts that they have
acquired ownership thereof by way of adverse possession. Thus, the
nature of defendants’ possession is a matter in dispute and is required to be
established through evidence. The question regarding any document
relating to allotment of the property to late Rev. M. S. Luka can therefore
be appropriately tested through cross examination of the plaintiffs’
witnesses and not by way of interrogatories.
8. The same applies to interrogatory no. (iv), which concerns notices
issued by the plaintiffs requiring the defendants to vacate the suit property
between 11.12.2009 to 13.02.2024. The existence, issuance and effect of
such notices are again matters which can be tested through cross
-- 3 of 5 --
4 of 5
examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses.
9. It is well settled that interrogatories to extract something, which a
party could do so in the course of cross examination, cannot be allowed2.
It is also relevant to mention that the present application has been filed
after framing of issues, when the pleadings have already crystallized the
controversy between the parties. The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in
Sandeep Grover Vs. Priyanka Batra3 has observed that applications for
interrogatories under Order XI CPC should ordinarily not be entertained
after the framing of issues.
10. In view of the foregoing, this court is of the view that interrogatories
at serial no. (iii) & (iv) are essentially matters of evidence and cross
examination and therefore, the application cannot be allowed. The
application is accordingly dismissed as disposed of.
IA/2/2026 — Application under Section 33 to 35 of Indian Stamp Act,
1899.
11. The application under Section 33 to 35 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899
has now been taken up for disposal.
12. After some arguments, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs seeks
permission to withdraw the present application on the ground that the
objections are premature, with liberty to raise the same at the appropriate
stage when the document is tendered in evidence.
13. In view of the submissions made, the application is disposed of as
withdrawn. Liberty is reserved with the defendants to raise the objections
regarding admissibility and stamping of the documents at the appropriate
stage, in accordance with law. The application is accordingly disposed of.
14. At this stage, a copy of order dated 05.08.2026 passed in RCA DJ
2 Centrient Pharmaceuticals Netherlands B.V. & Anr. vs. Dalas Biotech Ltd. 2021 SCC OnLine Del 157
3 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12425/2015.
-- 4 of 5 --
5 of 5
No. 61/2018, pending before the Patiala House Courts, has been placed on
record by the defendants. Copy supplied to the opposite side.
15. List the matter for PE on 17.12.2026.
(AYUSH SHARMA)
CIVIL JUDGE-05/CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI
-- 5 of 5 --