Delhi District Court
Smt. Usha Beniwal vs National Insurance Company Ltd & Others on 3 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. KADAMBARI AWASTHI CJ 02 (CENTRAL),TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI Suit No : 633/14 In the matter of : Smt. Usha Beniwal ...........Plaintiff VERSUS National Insurance Company Ltd & Others ...........Defendant Dated : 03.03.2015 Order By this order I shall dispose off an application under Order 11 Rule 1&2 read with Section 151 CPC moved on behalf of defendant.
It is submitted by the applicant/defendant that the defendant no.2 and the plaintiff has filed the suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the applicant.
Suit No : 633/14 Page 1 of 4It is stated that the certain interrogatories are quite, essential for quick and fast disposal of the suit and in the interest of justice for the purpose of examining the plaintiff. The certain interrogatories are administered to the plaintiff are essential and necessary.
A prayer is made accordingly.
Reply to the said application has been filed on behalf of defendant in form of affidavit elucidating certain replies and objecting to certain interrogatories.
Heard. Perused.
The court is of the opinion that the object and purpose of serving interrogatories is to enable a party to require information from his opponent for the purpose of maintaining his own case & for destroying the case of the adversity. Every party to a suit is entitled to know the nature of his opponents case so that he may know before handed, but he is not entitled to know the facts which constitutes exclusively, the evidence of his opponents case.
Though, the application for leave to administer interrogatories is as a rule, made exparte, but an reply by way of an affidavit has been filed on record by the plaintiff which not only Suit No : 633/14 Page 2 of 4 defines some interrogatories administered to her & also objection answer to some being objectionable/objected to. At this stage the non applicant was not required reply to the interrogatories since the necessary leave of the court whether it is a fit & proper case for administering interrogatories has not been decided as yet.
Nevertheless, the court is of the view that the application filed by the defendant for administering the interrogatories is beyond the purview the under Order 11 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
It has been held in the catena of cases that there is sharp distinction between interrogatories & cross examination and not every question which can be put to a witness in the box may be put as an interrogatories. Thus, question which are put only to test the credibility of a person are not allowed as interrogatories, although they may be asked in cross examination.
It has been held in Raj Narain Vs. Indira Gandhi, AIR 1972 SC 1302 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that while distinguishing interrogatories from question appropriate during cross examination, observed.
Question that may be relevant during cross examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. The only question Suit No : 633/14 Page 3 of 4 that are relevant as interrogatories are those, relating to any matter in question.
Thus the application of the applicant is not allowed as it involved a fishing & roving inquiry by way of administering interrogatories to the plaintiff.
Hence, the application in hand stands dismissed. Now, come up on 15.04.2015 for further proceedings.
(KADAMBARI AWASTHI) Civil Judge02/Central/Delhi 03.03.2015 Suit No : 633/14 Page 4 of 4