2023 SCMR 636
Defamation --- Suit for damages --- Contumacious conduct of defendant --- Defendant failing to comply with order to answer interrogatories and prolonging the proceedings --- Effect --- Striking out of the right of defence --- [ Per Syed Mansoor Ali Shah , J. ( Majority view ) : Proceedings of the case were prolonged by the petitioner ( defendant ) at every stage of the case in the Trial Court to delay the decision of the case --- During proceedings for delivering and answering the interrogatories by the parties under Order XI , C.P.C. , the petitioner showed the same delaying tactics by which he had been hindering the progress of the suit earlier - Trial Court had provided the petitioner with more than sufficient opportunities to submit his answers to the interrogatories of the respondent , before taking the penal action under Rule 21 of Order XI , C.P.C .--- Conduct of the petitioner and disobedient had remained willfully contumacious throughout the proceedings of the case in the Trial Court --- Trial Court had not committed any illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction by dismissing the objections ( application ) of the petitioner for rejection of the interrogatories of the respondent and directing him to submit the answers to those interrogatories and subsequently by striking out the right of defence of the petitioner due to non - submission of the answers . to the said interrogatorics ] --- [ Per Ayesha A. Malik , J. ( Minority view ) : In the present case the order of the Trial Court whereby the right of the petitioner's defence was struck out , the facts of the case did not establish that the petitioner committed willful default or intentionally and deliberately disobeyed an order of the Court --- Effect of striking out the defence was that it deprived the party of its ability to defend itself in the case which was a serious matter --- In the present case the Court had other alternatives , at as well as its disposal , to regulate the pace of the proceedings the conduct of the petitioner , one of which was to impose costs which would not only serve as a form of deterrence but would also lay the foundation for expeditious justice - Trial Court proceeded in a mechanical manner with the case , and granted numerous adjournments without so much as imposing cost so as to discourage the same - Order by which the right of defence of the petitioner was struck out , did not state that it was based on the history of the case or the overall conduct of the petitioner in the case --- Petitioner's recent public shooting and injury at a political rally justified the grant of an adjournment for a reasonable time under the circumstances --- Right to defence could not be struck out without considering all relevant factors --- Impugned order of the Trial Court , whereby right of defence of petitioner was struck out , was set aside , and the case was remanded to the Trial Court to grant reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file answers to the interrogatories and thereafter to proceed with the case in accordance with law ]
O . XI , R. 21 --- Party failing to comply with any order to answer interrogatories , or for discovery or inspection of documents --- Effect --- Conduct of party --- Scope --- Conduct of a party is material for the purpose of exercising the court's discretion under Rule 21 of Order XI , C.P.C .: the court takes the penal action of dismissing the suit of the plaintiff or striking out the defence of the defendant when the party concerned is guilty of contumacious conduct by disregarding the specific order of the court , for compliance of which the court has granted a reasonable time and a sufficient opportunity --- However , it is not only a deliberate failure to comply with a specific order of the court by a party that is regarded as his contumacious conduct but a series of separate inordinate delays caused by him at different stages of the proceedings case is also a convincing proof of such conduct .
O . XI , Rr . 1 & 2 --- Interrogatories --- Significance --- Interrogatories serve as a useful tool to shorten litigation and reduce expenses of litigation --- However , the process of interrogatories should not be abused and misused to prolong the trial and add to the expenses --- Such an abuse of the process of interrogatories has to be curbed with a heavy hand --- Fair use of the process of interrogatories should be encouraged , for it would result in considerable saving of time and money and thus be beneficial to the parties of the case as well as to the administration of justice in general .
2023 SCMR 636
O . XI , R. 21 --- Process of delivering interrogatories and requiring their answers --- Non - compliance with order for discovery --- Application under Rule 21 of Order XI , C.P.C .-- Form --- Expression " apply " used in Rule 21 includes oral application ( request ) also , and the application need not be in the written form necessarily .
2023 SCMR 636
Interrogatories submitted to the Court --- Power of the Trial Court under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XI , C.P.C .--- Scope - Power of the Trial Court under Rule 1 of Order XI , C.P.C. to examine the interrogatories before delivering the same to the party concerned under Rule 2 and reject any irrelevant interrogatory at that stage , is permissive , not obligatory ; the non - exercise of which does not vitiate the order of the court delivering the interrogatories to the party concerned under Rule 2 for submitting the answers --- Since Trial Courts are overburdened with high pendency of cases , they cannot be expected , in the prevailing circumstances , to make such examination of the interrogatories in every case , under Rule 1 --- Rather , it is more practicable in the prevailing circumstances and in our system of administration of civil justice , which is primarily adversarial , that the party concerned should invite the attention of the Trial Court for such examination , either ( i ) by making an application under Rule 7 of Order XI if all or most of the interrogatories delivered appear to be irrelevant by specifying the particular objection taken to each of such interrogatories separately , or ( ii ) by answering those interrogatories which he thinks are relevant and taking objection to those which he thinks are irrelevant as per Rule 6 of Order XI , C.P.C
0 Comments