- (1.)BY this application under Order XI Rule 21 CPC the Defendants seek dismissal of the suit due to non-compliance of order dated 18th September, 2012 passed by the learned Joint Registrar directing the Plaintiff to reply the interrogatories.
(2.)LEARNED counsel for the Defendant Nos. 1 (a), 2 and 3 contends that the Defendants/applicants sent a notice for interrogatories vide letter dated 19th September, 2012 by Registered Post through their counsel which was duly served on the Plaintiff, however no reply to the said interrogatories were received within the stipulated period as warranted vide order dated 18th September, 2012. Since the Plaintiff has intentionally not complied with the direction issued by this Court, the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that under Order XI Rule 4 CPC interrogatories are required to be sent in Form-2 in Appendix­C with such variations as circumstances may require. A perusal of Appendix-C Form-2 shows that the only requirements are that the title of the suit has to be given followed by the request for interrogatories and the interrogatories. It is contended that vide the notice dated 19th September, 2012 learned counsel for the Defendants/applicants clearly mentioned the details of the suit and the order required to be complied with. The interrogatories sought to be replied were also recited. Hence necessary compliance under Order XI Rule 4 CPC was made and the only ground taken by the Plaintiff that the interrogatories were not in proper format is liable to be rejected. Reliance is placed on Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and others vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRs, 2012 (5) SCC 370 to rely on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the judicial officers and judges should adhere to Section 30 CPC in ascertaining the truth and the lawyers must ensure that the truth triumphs in the administration of justice.
Learned counsel for the Plaintiff on the other hand contends that the notice issued by the learned counsel for the Defendants/applicants was not in the form prescribed under Order XI Rule 4 and thus the Plaintiff was not obliged to reply the same. Reliance is placed on Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR 32 (1945) PC 18 to contend that if an act is required to be done in a particular manner as per the statute then it has to be done in the same manner. Reliance is also placed on Bhikraj Jaipuria vs. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 113 (Constitution Bench); Babbar Sewing Machine Company vs. Trilok Nath Mahajan, 1978 (4) SCC 188; Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Escorts Ltd., 2012 (188) DLT 126 and Shambhu Dutt Dogra vs. Shakti Dogra and others, 2012 (192) DLT 539 to contend that where a statute prescribe the manner in which the act is to be performed but does not set out the consequence of non-compliance, the question whether the provision is mandatory or directory has to be adjudged in the light of intention of the legislature as disclosed by the object, purpose and scope of the statute. If the statute is mandatory, the thing done not in the manner or form prescribed can have no effect or validity; if it is directory, penalty may be incurred for non- compliance, but the act or thing done is regarded as good.

(3.)I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The present application arises from the order dated 18th September,