Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court

Shree Vijaya Fabrics Thr Vimlawanti ... vs Shivani Khanna & Anr on 23 September, 2021

Author: Amit Bansal

Bench: Amit Bansal

                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          %                              Date of decision: 23rd September, 2021

                          +      CM(M) 266/2020 & CM No.8000/2020(for stay)

                                 SHREE VIJAYA FABRICS THR VIMLAWANTI MANCHANDA
                                                                     ..... Petitioner
                                               Through: Mr. Amit Saxena with Mr. K.
                                                        Bhardwaj & Mr. Ajay Sejwal,
                                                        Advocates.

                                                     versus

                                 SHIVANI KHANNA & ANR                                    ..... Respondents
                                              Through: None.

                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

                          AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 4th September, 2019 passed by the Additional District Judge (Central)- 10, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (Trial Court) in Civil Suit No.3254/2017 whereby the application filed on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs under Order XI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to serve interrogatories on the petitioner/defendant has been allowed.

2. It is contended by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/defendant that the interrogatories sought to be served on the petitioner/defendant have no relevance at all for the adjudication of the case.

3. Order XI details the entire procedure in respect of discovery by interrogatories. Order XI Rule 6 of the CPC gives the right to a party to object to the interrogatories in their affidavit in answer. Thereafter, Order XI Rules 7, 10 and 11 of the CPC give power to the Court to decide on the aforesaid objections taken to any of the interrogatories and the sufficiency or otherwise of the answers given to the interrogatories. In this regard, reference may be made to Order XI Rules 6, 7, 10 and 11 of the CPC, which are set out hereinbelow:

"Order XI "6. Objections to interrogatories by answer. - Any objection to answering any interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit, or that the matters inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage, [or on the ground of privilege or any other ground ], may be taken in the affidavit in answer.

7. Setting aside and striking out interrogatories. - Any interrogatories may be set aside on the ground that they have been exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously, or struck out on the ground that they are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous; and any application for this purpose may be made within seven days after service of the interrogatories.

xxx xxx xxx

10. No exception to be taken.-- No exceptions shall be taken to any affidavit in answer, but the sufficiency or otherwise of any such affidavit objected to as insufficient shall be determined by the Court.

11. Order to answer or answer further.--Where any person interrogated omits to answer, or answer insufficiently, the party interrogating may apply to the Court for an order requiring him CM(M) 266/2020 Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Signed By:ASHWANI Signing Date:26.09.2021 19:44:20 to answer, or to answer further, as the case may be. And an order may be made requiring him to answer or answer further, either by affidavit or by viva voce examination as the Court may direct."

4. The above provisions have been interpreted by this Court in a catena of judgments (see Sharda Dhir Vs. Ashok Kumar Makhija and Ors. MANU/DE/1021/2002, Canara Bank Vs. Rajiv Tyagi & Association & Anr. ILR (2010) III Delhi 270 and Transport Corporation of India vs. Reserve Bank of India MANU/DE/2499/2017). I have, in a recent judgment in Tara Batra Vs. Punam A. Kumar & Ors. MANU/DE/1968/2021, while following the previous judgments of this Court, held that Courts while deciding an application seeking leave to administer interrogatories have to only consider whether the interrogatories sought to be administered have any bearing on the case. The Courts have to be liberal and not hyper- technical in allowing the use of interrogatories as the interrogatories help shorten the controversy between the parties and hence, reduce the time taken for the trial. It has also been held that once the interrogatories are served upon the party, the said party has to answer the interrogatories on affidavit and in the said affidavit, objections can be raised on the ground that the said interrogatories are scandalous or not relevant for the purposes of the suit. It is at that stage, that the Courts have to consider which of the questions in the interrogatories the party should be compelled to answer.

5. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. After relying upon judgments passed by this Court, the Trial Court has observed that the interrogatories sought to be served on the petitioner/defendant are CM(M) 266/2020 Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Signed By:ASHWANI Signing Date:26.09.2021 19:44:20 relevant for the adjudication of the case and accordingly the application was allowed with a direction to the petitioner/defendant to answer the interrogatories within a period of six weeks. While answering the interrogatories on affidavit, the petitioner/defendant can object to answering any particular interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit or on the ground that the interrogatories sought to be served are not material at that stage of the suit or are privileged.

6. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. The present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner/defendant to answer the interrogatories by filing affidavit in terms of Order XI Rules 8 and 9 of the CPC within four weeks from today. In the said affidavit, the petitioner/defendant can raise objections in respect of individual interrogatories in terms of Order XI Rule 6 of the CPC. Thereafter, the Trial Court would have the power to decide on the aforesaid objections, if any, taken to any of the interrogatories and the sufficiency or otherwise of the answers given to the interrogatories.

7. CM No.8000/2020 stands disposed of.

AMIT BANSAL, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2021 ak CM(M) 266/2020 Page 4 of 4 Signature Not Verified Signed By:ASHWANI Signing Date:26.09.2021 19:44:20