Punjab-Haryana High Court
Umesh Gupta vs Monika Singal on 29 October, 2025
CR-7607-2025(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-7607-2025(O&M)
Date of Decision: 29.10.2025
UMESH GUPTA ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
MONIKA SINGAL ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Dr, Parveen Hans. Advocate, and
Mr. Aditya Narayan Arya Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*****
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.(Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC") seeking leave to deliver interrogatories to the respondent, was dismissed.
FACTS
2. The brief facts are that the respondent instituted the Eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and eviction) Act, 1973 before the learned Rent Controller, Hisar, for eviction of the petitioner- Tenant from shop at ground Floor forming part of Municipal Property No. 234/92/15-I, ID No.30C125U129, which is presently at the stage of evidence SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.11.04 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7607-2025(O&M) 2 before the learned rent controller. After the examination-in-chief of one of the witnesses had already commenced, the petitioner moved an application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC seeking permission to administer interrogatories to the respondent. However, the learned Civil Judge, vide the impugned order, dismissed the said application holding that the interrogatories sought by the petitioner could be raised during cross-examination, and the application was nothing but a device to delay the proceedings.
CONTENTIONS
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC was filed to obtain specific admissions from the respondent on material facts relating to the property in dispute. It is pointed out that the respondent or her predecessor had earlier filed an eviction petition concerning the same premises, but the description and dimensions of the property mentioned therein differ from those given in the present case. The petitioner, therefore, sought interrogatories to clarify whether the present premises is identical to that involved in the previous proceedings and to determine the correct extent and identification of the tenanted property. It is contended that these matters are exclusively within the respondent's knowledge, and answers to the interrogatories would assist the Court in avoiding confusion or multiplicity of evidence.
4. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, has placed reliance upon the judgments of Canara Bank v. Rajiv Tyagi, 2010 (20) RCR(Civil) 569, Major Singh v. Suresh Kumar, 2009 (5) RCR (Civil) 667; Tara Batra v. Punam A Kumar, 2021 (284) DLT 198, and Surjit Kaur v. Raghbir Singh, 2011 (2) Law Herald 993, to contend that mere SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.11.04 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7607-2025(O&M) 3 observation by the trial Court that the questions proposed could be asked during cross-examination is not a sufficient ground to reject an application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC. It is argued that the object of interrogatories is to obtain admissions before trial to shorten litigation and that the trial Court erred in taking a restrictive view. The petitioner claims that the interrogatories sought were relevant to the controversy and that rejection on such a ground defeats the purpose of discovery contemplated under the Code. Thus, the learned counsel asserts that the application was made bona fide to secure necessary clarification. He submits that interrogatories are a legitimate tool of discovery and can be invoked at any stage before the conclusion of trial. It is further submitted that the trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and adopted a hyper- technical approach.
OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully examined the record along with the impugned order. The application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC was rightly dismissed by the learned Trial Court as being an attempt to stall the expeditious disposal of ejectment petition, and misconceived, the same having been filed after commencement of evidence and contrary to the procedural scheme of the Code.
Delay and Misuse of the Provision under Order XI CPC
6. It is well settled that the object of interrogatories under Order XI CPC is to aid discovery, facilitate admissions, and narrow the scope of controversy for speedy and effective adjudication. The rule of procedure is intended to be the handmaid of justice, assisting the Court in unearthing the truth rather than restricting it within procedural rigidity. The provision should, therefore, be SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.11.04 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7607-2025(O&M) 4 construed liberally to advance justice and not as a technical hurdle in the way of fair adjudication.
7. At the same time, this beneficial tool of discovery cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of mischief or delay. The Courts must ensure that the procedure designed to expedite justice is not used as a roadblock to justice. Interrogatories are meant to shorten litigation, not prolong it; and once it becomes apparent that the process is being invoked at a belated stage or for collateral purposes, the Court is fully justified in refusing such leave. The duty of the Court is not only to facilitate justice but also to prevent misuse of procedural devices that were enacted to secure the speedy conclusion of disputes.
8. In the present case, while the principle behind Order XI CPC is indeed salutary, the conduct of the petitioner reveals that the application was filed only after the commencement of evidence, showing that the provision was being employed not to clarify facts but to obstruct and delay the progress of trial. Hence, though interrogatories are a legitimate aid to justice, their invocation in the present circumstances defeats the very purpose for which the provision exists. It is an admitted position that in the present case, issues were framed long ago and the matter was already at the stage of recording of evidence when the petitioner moved the application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC. The petitioner actively participated in the proceedings and allowed the matter to proceed to the stage of evidence without any request for interrogatories earlier. No reason, much less sufficient explanation, has been furnished in the application for the belated invocation of discovery proceedings.
9. As regards the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, there can be no dispute with the general proposition laid down SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.11.04 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7607-2025(O&M) 5 therein that an application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the same questions may be put during cross-examination. However, those precedents were rendered in circumstances where the applications were made at the appropriate stage and were found to be bona fide. The present case stands on an entirely different footing. Here, the eviction petition was filed by the respondent on 25.09.2018, and the application for interrogatories came to be filed by the petitioner only on 05.09.2025, that is, after a lapse of nearly seven years and when the case was already fixed for evidence, that too when respondent is already in witness box, and his cross examination is being stalled by moving repeated applications. This timing, coupled with the petitioner's conduct throughout the proceedings, indicates a consistent tendency to delay the disposal of the eviction petition so as to protect his continued possession of the premises. The present application of interrogatories is also another such attempt, made under the guise of discovery, to evade and postpone the final adjudication. Therefore, the reliance placed upon the above authorities does not advance the petitioner's case, as the factual context here reveals a clear misuse of the process of law.
10. Apart from the above factual aspect, there exists yet another legal impediment which bars the petitioner from invoking Order XI CPC at this stage.
Procedural Bar under the Scheme and Sequence of the CPC
11. Significantly, the very scheme and sequence of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 make it evident that, in its true intent and essence, the provision for interrogatories is confined to the pre-trial stage and is not meant to be invoked once the trial has proceeded to the stage of evidence. The Code is SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.11.04 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7607-2025(O&M) 6 designed to be followed in the order in which its provisions are drafted, each stage leading logically to the next. The chapter dealing with discovery including Order XI (Interrogatories) is placed before the Orders dealing with admissions (Order XII), framing of issues (Order XIV), and summoning and examination of witnesses (Orders XVI to XVIII). This placement reflects the legislative intent that interrogatories are to function as a pre-trial discovery mechanism to clarify facts and obtain admissions before the framing of issues, so that parties can be pinned down to actual controversy prior to witnesses are summoned or examined.
12. Accordingly, once the proceedings have progressed to the stage of examination of witnesses, the structure and sequence of the CPC itself preclude recourse to interrogatories. Their use at such a late stage would be inconsistent with the procedural design of the Code and would defeat its purpose of ensuring an orderly and expeditious trial. It thus becomes apparent that interrogatories are intended to be filed before the commencement of evidence, and preferably even before or immediately after framing of issues, so that the process of discovery fulfils its intended function of narrowing the controversy rather than interrupting the course of trial. There can be deviation from this scheme in suitable cases for meeting the ends of justice as rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. Therefore, both on account of the petitioner's conduct and the procedural bar flowing from the scheme of the CPC, the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 1 CPC deserves to be rejected.
13. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner intends to seek through interrogatories what can be effectively raised during cross-examination of witness who is already in witness box having got recorded his examination-in- chief before the learned rent controller. Allowing such an application at this SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.11.04 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7607-2025(O&M) 7 stage would amount to advancing the litigation strategy of the petitioner and encouraging a dilatory tactic. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge rightly held that the interrogatories sought were not bona fide and could very well be raised during cross-examination of witness whose cross-examination is only pending. There is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
14. Consequently, the revision petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed.
(VIRINDER AGGARWAL)
29.10.2025 JUDGE
Saurav Pathania
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable : Yes/No
SAURAV PATHANIA
2025.11.04 17:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document