Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satya Devi vs Kanta Rani And Ors. on 22 December, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1999)123PLR724
Author: V.S. Aggarwal
Bench: V.S. Aggarwal
JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by Smt. Satya Devi, hereinafter described as "the petitioner", directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur, dated 7.5.1998. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff and directed the petitioner to file reply to the interrogatories.
2. The relevant facts are that respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for declaration claiming 1/4th share from the properties in dispute. It was asserted that the said share is on the basis of inheritance. The said suit was contested by others including the petitioner. Plea had been raised that Maya Devi had left a Will dated 6.11.1990 in favour of the husband of the petitioner and respondents No. 9 and 10 and that the Wills dated 11.10.1990 and 12.10.1990 were cancelled. Issues were framed and the parties led evidence. The case was fixed for evidence in rebuttal. At that stage, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code") for delivering interrogatories to be answered by the petitioner. It was asserted that in order to save the time of the court and delay, permission should be granted to deliver the interrogatories to the defendant-petitioner. The said application was contested and the learned trial Court had passed the following order:-
"As per arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties on application under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC, since the interrogatory related to the matter in question in the suit and it will save the time of the court as well as the parties, so application dated 10.3.1998 is allowed. Defendant is directed to file the reply of the Interrogatory on 9.5.1998.
7.5.1998, Sd/- CJJD FZR."
Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed. Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code reads as under:-
"1. Discovery by interrogatories:- In any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties, and such interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of such person is required to answer:
Provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same party without an order for the purpose:
Provided also that interrogatories which do no relate to any matters in question in the suit shall deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness."
3. The purpose of Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code is that a party is entitled to know the nature of the opponent's case. He must know beforehand as to what he is to meet at the hearing. Sometimes the plaint and the written statement do not sufficiently disclose the nature of the parties, case. Therefore, the interrogatories are permitted to be served to elucidate the facts and to know the exact nature of the litigation from an unscrupulous party. The said purpose has been considered by the Supreme Court. In the decision rendered in the case of Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1302, it was held that the questions that may be relevant during cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. They must be closely connected with the matter in question. In paragraph 27 of the judgment, the Supreme Court concluded as under:-
"Questions that may be relevant during cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. The only questions that are relevant as interrogatories are those relating to "any matters in question". The interrogatories served must have reasonably close connection with "matters in question." Viewed thus, interrogatories 1 to 18 as well as 31 must be held to be irrelevant."
The same question came up for consideration before the Delhi High Court in the case of Rajasthan Golden Transport Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Avon Footwear Industries Pvt. Ltd., A.I.R. 1986 Delhi 286. The said principle was reiterated and the Delhi High Court held as under:-
"Under O.XI, R.1 any party to a suit may with the leave of the Court deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties for eliciting any relevant information, admissions or evidence of material facts to be adduced at the trial and to save expenses to lengthy evidence. The main object of delivering interrogatories by a party is to discover facts in order to facilitate the proof of his own case. However, the power to allow interrogatories to be administered by one party to another is always subject to the discretion of the Court. The discretion extends to allowing or refusing particular interrogatories. See para 103 of Vol. 13, Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, wherein it is further stated that the Court of Appeal will not lightly interfere with the Judge's exercise of his discretion, unless he acts on a wrong principle. That besides, it is well settled that interrogatories must be confined to the matters which are in issue or sufficiently material at the particular stage of the action at which they are sought to be delivered or to the relief claimed...."
4. Bombay High Court in the case of Nishi Prem v. Javed Akhtar and Ors., A.I.R. 1998 Bombay 222, also in the same language held in paragraph 7 of the judgment as under:-
" . . . . This rule is enacted to enable to parties to know the nature of the opponent's case, but the rule does not entitle the party to ascertain the facts which constitute exclusively the evidence of the other side, the reason being that it would enable unscrupulous parties to tamper with the witnesses of the other side and to manufacture evidence in contradiction and so shape his case as to defeat justice. In cases where the plaint or written statement does not necessarily disclose the nature of the case, then interrogatories are administered to make good the deficiency. Interrogatories can also be administered to obtain admission from other parties to facilitate the proof of the claim. Order XI, Rule 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the interrogatories may be objected 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. It is well settled that the parties are not entitled to administer interrogatories for obtaining discoveries of facts which constitutes evidence of its adversary's case or title."
No different was the view of the Orissa High Court in the case of Janaki Ballav Patnaik v. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd., and Ors., A.I.R. 1989 Orissa 216, wherein the following principles were enumerated:-
"Every party to a suit is entitled to know the nature of his opponent's case, so that he may know before hand what case he has to meet at the hearing. But he is not entitled to know the facts which constitute exclusively the evidence of his opponent's case, the reason being that it would enable an unscrupulous party to tamper with his opponent's witnesses, and to manufacture evidence in contradiction, and so shape his case as to defeat justice. The nature of a plaintiffs case is disclosed in his plaint. The nature of a defendant's case is disclosed in his written statement. But a plaint or a written statement may not sufficiently disclose the nature of a party's case, and to make good the deficiency, either party may administer interrogatories in writing to the other through the Court. Interrogatories may also be administered by a party to his opponent to obtain admissions from him to facilitate the proof of his own case. The party to whom interrogatories are administered must answer them in writing and on oath...."
It is obvious from the aforesaid that serving of interrogatories have to be encouraged as it is a means of getting admissions and tends to shorten the litigation. It precipitate the controversy and help the Court to come to a rightful conclusion.
5. In the facts of the present case, it has been pointed out that the entire evidence of the parties has been led. The suit was listed for evidence of the plaintiff in rebuttal. It was at that stage that the interrogatories were served. Once the evidence has been led, as noticed above, and there is very little to be recorded in evidence, then serving of interrogatories will not serve any purpose. Fishy interrogatories will not be proper. The very purpose of interrogatories at this stage is frustrated. Therefore, the learned trial Court was patently in error in allowing the application without recording reasons. The order must be taken to have been passed without jurisdiction.
6. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the application under Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code filed by respondent No. 1 -plaintiff is dismissed.