JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
(1) By this order, I would be disposing of the above application moved by the petitioners under Order Xi Rule I, Civil Procedure Code seeking to deliver Ii interrogatories to respondent No. 1.
(2) For a proper appreciation to determine the material questions in dispute between the partics, it would be pertinent to recapitulate the relevant facts in brief: (I)The petitioners No. 1, Sh. Devi Sahai now deceased and petitioners No. 2, Sh. Dhansi Ram son of Devi Sahai had filed the present petition under Sections 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking declaration that the agreement of reference dated 31.8.1975 be declared to be illegal, void and non-existence and of no effect. (ii) The petitioner case is that Sh. Devi Sahai was a sole tenant of shop No. 4788 Ram Bazar, Cloth Market, Fateh Pun, since 1941 having taken the shop on rent from one Smt. Triveni Devi. It is claimed that Sh. Devi Sahai was carrying on his sole proprietorship business under the name and style of Sohan Lal Ram Phal. It is claimed that on 23.11.1967 Sh. Devi Sahai entered into a partnership business with one Sh. Sadhu Ram Jhaggarwala, vide a partnership Deed of dated 23.11.1967. It is claimed that the partnership deed provided for retention of the tenancy rights in favour of petitioner No. 1. It is further claimed that on 13.11.1982, Sh. Devi Sahai also took Dhansi Ram petitioner No. 2 (son) and Smt. Manju Bansal (wife of another son) as partners. Further that on 31.3.1991, Sh. Sadhu Ram left the partnership firm. (iii) The case of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 1 used to appear for Devi Sahai as also for the registered partnership firm in the Income Tax assessment proceedings in the years 1961-62, 1962-63, 1964-65 1965-66 and 1970-71 himself as well as through his juniors. It is claimed that respondent No. 1 used to obtain signatures of petitioners Nos. 1and 2 on several blank papers as required, during the assessment proceedings. It is stated that respondent No. 1 during these proceedings had produced books of account of the firm and also stated that petitioners No. I was the sole tenant of the property. It is claimed that the alleged agreement dated 31.8.1975, has been fabricated on one of the blank papers removed from some file. The petitioners also have raised pleas regarding the agreement being void and being inadmissible in evidence, being unstamped. (iv) The respondent No. I on the other hand has contended that the arbitration agreement dated 31.8.1975, is absolutely legal and valid and had been entered into between the parties. The case of the respondent is that late Sh. Raghunath Sahai was the tenant in respect of the shop in question namely 4788, Ram Bazar, Cloth Market, Patch Puri, Delhi. It is claimed that late Sh. Raghunath Sahai died on 11.8.1975 and there was a oral partition of the estate of late Sh. Raghunath Sahai between his sons namely Sh. Devki Nandan, Sh. Devi Sahai, petitioners No. 1, Sh. Narayan Dass and respondent No. 1, Sh. Ram Phal. In terms of the said oral partition, which was also acted upon the shop in question namely 4788, Ram Bazar, Cloth Market, Fateh Puri, Delhi fell to the share of Sh. Ram Phal. It is claimed that, however, the petitioners requested the respondent No. I that since his sons were young, they should be permitted to continue to use the shop. The respondent No. I did not require the shop allotted to him then, his sons being young, he acceded to the request on a specific undertaking by Sh. Devi Sahai, petitioner No. 1 and his son Sh. Dhansi Ram that they would vacate the shop on respondent’s son attaining the age of 25 years. It is the respondent No. l’s case that the agreement dated 31.8.1975 recorded the above understanding and undertaking of Devi Sahai and his son Sh. Dhansi Ram. This was entered into with a view to avoid any dispute later on by petitioner No. 2. Sh. Dhansi Ram had also signed the agreement, which provided for reference of disputes to the named Arbitrator. (v) The respondent’s case is that Sh. Raghunath Sahai was the sole proprietor of the firm Sohan Lal Ram Phal and he paid the rent during his life-time. It is claimed that Raghunath Sahai had initiated proceedings for fixation of standard rent. The registration under the Sales Tax Act also showed late Shri Sh. Raghunath Sahai as the sole proprietor of the firm Sohan Lal Ram Phal. Sh. Sohan Lal being the grand father of the petitioner No. I and Sh. Ram Phal being the respondent No. 1. (vi) The respondent No.l denies that petitioner No.l was ever a sole tenant in the shop. The various partnership firms even if constituted by the petitioner No. 2 were irrelevant and made no difference. The respondent No. 1 denies that he obtained the signatures of petitioners on blank papers ever. The respondent’s case is that even as per the petitioners’s own averment, that the petitioner No. 2 became a partner on 13.11.1982.
Hence there was no occasion of the petitioners Nos.l and 2 signing the blank papers for the assessment proceedings of proceeding years as alleged. The respondent No. I claims that the said agreement was duly executed.
(3) It would also be pertinent to observe that vide separate order passed in I.A.9094/95, the following issues have been framed : 1. Whether the agreement dated 31.8.1975 is false and fabricated as alleged? Opp 2. In case the answer to issue No. I is in the negative, then whether the agreement dated 31.8.1975 is void and unenforceable as contended by the petitioners? Opp 3. Relief. 4. Further evidence has been directed to be filed by way of affidavit, with the parties having the opportunity to cross-examine the deponents of the respective affidavits. 5. Before going into specific interrogatories that are sought to be delivered. It may be observed that pleadings are intended to disclose the nature of the case of the parties. However, the pleadings may not sufficiently disclose the nature of parties case. To make good the deficiency either party may administer interrogatories through the Court. A further purpose of serving interrogatories to obtain admissions from the other side to facilitate the proof of its own case directly or indirectly by impeaching or destroying the adversary’s case. The interrogatories, must however, relate to the material questions in the suit. They should not be irrelevant or in the nature of a fishing enquiry. The main object of interrogatories is to curtail litigation, save expense by enabling a party to obtain information as to facts material to the questions in dispute (Suresh Chand Kumar v. Vinay Devi OAs. Nos. 4 and 5 decided by Avadh Bihari Rohtagi, J.). The interrogatories are not to be disallowed merely on the ground that the party interrogating has other means of proving the facts in question. The Apex Court in Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi reported at Air 1972 S.C.1303 observed that “questions that may be relevant during cross examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. The only questions that are relevant as interrogatories are those relevant to any matters in question. Interrogatories served must have reasonably close connection with the matters in question.”
Having noticed the facts in brief and questions that arise in this Omp and having set out the principles for serving and allowing interrogatories, let us examine the interrogatories that are sought to be served in the instant case. 1.Is it a fact or not that you appeared as an Advocate for M/s. Devi Sahai Aggarwal in the Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the firm M/ s. Devi Sahai Aggarwal for the assessment years 1961-62,1962-63,1963- 64, 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1970-71 either personally or through your juniors? 2. Please state from which period to which period you were associated with M/s. Devi Sahai Aggarwal for income tax assessment proceedings? 3. Is it a fact or not that you were acting as an Income Tax Advisor of the said firm either yourself or through your juniors? If so, please state from which period to which period? 4. Is it a fact or not that you were filing income tax returns of the aforesaid firm? 5. Is it a fact or not that you produced the account book of the firm during the assessment proceedings for the years mentioned above? 6. Is it a fact or not that in the said income tax proceedings M /s. Devi Sahai Aggarwal was mentioned as the sole proprietory concern of Shri Devi Sahai? 7. Is it a fact or not that you were maintaining the files of the assessment proceedings? If so, please produce the same. 8. Is it a fact or not that Shri Dhansi Ram was no party to the alleged oral partition between the family members on 31.8.1975? 9. For how long have you been associated with Shri Kishan- Kumar Mehrotra? If so, when and in what capacity? 10. In what capacity was Mr. Krishan Kumar Mehrotra, Advocate was connected with Mr. Devi Sahai and since when? 11. Is it a fact that Shri Dhansi Ram had no interest in the property sought to be partitioned?
(6) As regard the first interrogatory, the petitioners positive case is that the disputed premises were in the sole tenancy of Sh. Devi Sahai and he was the sole proprietor of the firm Sohan Lal Ram Phal till about 23.11.1967. The petitioner No. 2 Sh. Dhansi Ram was inducted as a partner only on 13.11.1992. The first interrogatory does not relate to the sole proprietorship concern of firm M/s. Sohan Lal Ram Phal but to firm M/s. Devi Sahai Aggarwal. There is no averment in the petition with regard to the firm M/s. Devi Sahai Aggarwal or it partners. The first six interrogatories do not appear to be relevant. The questions herein appear to fall rather in the domain of what maybe permissible legitimately to be asked during cross examination. It is not the petitioners’s case that petitioners No. 2 who is also said to be a signatory to an alleged agreement dated 31.8.1975, was a partner of the said firm M/s. Devi Sahai Aggarwal. The aforesaid interrogatories would not in any manner narrow down the controversy in suit or help in eliciting admissions. These interrogatories appear to be irrelevant. As regards interrogatories Nos. 8 and Ii, the case of the respondent is that there was an oral partition of the estate of Raghunath Sahai between four sons of Raghunath Sahai. It is not the respondent’s case that Sh. Dhansi Ram was a party to the oral family partition. Accordingly, interrogatories No. 8 and 11 would be irrelevant.
(7) As regards interrogatories 9 and 10, the same relate to the respondent No. l’s association with the named Arbitrator Sh. Krishan Kumar Mehrotra and the connection of the said Sh. Krishan Kumar Mehrotra with the respondent Sh. Devi Sahai. The petition is not one for removal of the Arbitrator. There is no allegation against the said Arbitrator in the petition. The same do not relate to matters in dispute in the petition. In these circumstances, the said interrogatories are wholly irrelevant.
(8) I accordingly, find that the interrogatories are unnecessary, irrelevant to the matters in issue. The application appears to have been motivated with a sole desire to delay the prosecution rather than to curtail the litigation or narrow down the matter in controversy, which is the object of the interrogatories. The application has no merit and is dismissed.