Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarbjinder Singh Bhullar Alias Bittu ... vs M/S Primelink Real Estates Private ... on 2 December, 2025
CR-7774-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
CR
CR-7774-2025 (O&M)
Decided on ::-02.12.2025
Sarbjinder Singh Bhullar alias Bittu Bhullar ....Petitioner
VERSUS
M/s Primelink Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MS.
M JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present: Mr. Kanwar Abhay Singh,
Singh Advocate for the petitioner
petitioner.
-.-
MANDEEP PANNU J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the order dated 01.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC seeking leave to deliver interrogatories to the plainti plaintiff ff was dismissed. The trial Court has observed that interrogatories under Order 11 Rule 1 are part of the pre-trial pre trial discovery mechanism and are ordinarily resorted to prior to the commencement of evidence. Since the suit had already proceeded to the stage of plaintiff's evidence, the Court held that allowing interrogatories at this stage would not be proper, particularly when the questions sought to be put could be asked during cross-examination.
cross
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impug impugned ned order on the ground that the trial Court has erred in taking a narrow view of Order 11 Rule 1 CPC. It is argued that the purpose of interrogatories is to enable a party to obtain admissions or material facts from the opposite party and that such discov discovery ery may TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.03 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7774-2025 (O&M) -2- be allowed at any stage with the leave of the Court. It is further submitted that the trial Court has incorrectly held that interrogatories must be confined to a stage before the commencement of evidence, whereas the statutory provision does not expressly pressly impose such restriction. Counsel has relied upon various judgments to contend that interrogatories should not be refused merely because the information sought may also be elicited through cross cross-examination examination and that where interrogatories are relevant relevant to the issues, their scope cannot be curtailed by technicalities. It is the petitioner's submission that the interrogatories sought in the present case relate to khasra numbers, area, and the location of the suit property, matters which are central to the the controversy and necessary for the proper adjudication of the suit.
3. Since the short controversy is involved in the present revision petition, petition no notice is required to be issued to the respondents respondents.
4. Having considered the submissions and having perus perused ed the original order of the trial Court along with the pleadings, this Court finds no infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the learned Civil Judge. The scheme of Order 11 CPC demonstrates that interrogatories constitute a pre pre-trial device intended to narrow row the scope of controversy before evidence is led. While it is correct that the provision does not, in express terms, prohibit the filing of interrogatories after issues are framed, its settled purpose is to aid preparation for trial, not to interrupt trial ial proceedings or delay the recording of evidence. In the present case, the issues were framed long prior to the filing of the application and the matter had already been fixed for plaintiff's evidence. The trial Court has recorded several dates on which the plaintiff was to produce evidence, and it is evident from the record that TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.03 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7774-2025 (O&M) -3- the filing of the application at this stage would necessarily have the effect of stalling the trial. The contention of the respondent that the application is intended to delay thee proceedings has not been satisfactorily rebutted by the petitioner.
5. Furthermore, the questions proposed in the interrogatories relate to matters such as the exact area falling in various khasra numbers, the land adjoining the defendants' property, and and the extent of the plaintiff's land. These are matters which can be established by documentary evidence already produced on record and through cross-examination cross examination at the appropriate stage. Interrogatories cannot be used as a substitute for cross-examination cross n or as a means to compel the opposite party to set out its entire case in advance. The trial Court has correctly observed that the purpose of Order 11 CPC is not to permit fishing inquiries or to compel production of evidence which can otherwise be proved during the normal course of trial. The reasoning that the questions may be asked during cross cross-examination examination is valid and falls within the discretion of the trial Court.
6. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not advance the case of the revisionist. The decision in Acharya Devi Dutta Samsekhar v. Ajit Kumar Acharya, (2016) 122 CLT 535 reiterate the general principle that interrogatories may be permitted if they relate to matters in issue and if the information sought is necessary to determine the controversy. Those judgments do not mandate that interrogatories must be allowed irrespective of the stage of proceedings or irrespective of their effect on the trial. In fact, the applicability of those judgments depends on the nature of the interrogatories and the stage at which they are sought. In the present case, the interrogatories are neither indispensable for the determination rmination of any issue nor sought at a stage consistent with the object of Order TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.03 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7774-2025 (O&M) -4- 11 CPC.. The trial Court has rightly held that the questions proposed can be put during cross-examination examination and that the application, if allowed at the present stage, would disturb rb the orderly progress of the trial.
7. The Rajasthan High Court in Govind Narayan and Ors. v.. Nagendra Nagda and Ors, rs, 2017(4) RLW 3309, 3309 was dealing with interrogatories expressly aimed at the core questions in the suit, which had remained pending for 12 years, but even in that case, the Court held that interrogatories cannot be permitted after commencement of evidence when they tend to delay proceedings, and in fact dismissed the petition. The decision reinforces the principle that belated interrogatoriess that disrupt the trial process are impermissible, and therefore supports the impugned order rather than aiding the petitioner.
8. The judgment in Bharat Industries v. Punjab National Bank, CR-
CR 4280-1999, relied upon heavily by the petitioner, also does nnot ot advance the petitioner's case. There, the Court held that interrogatories can sometimes help shorten litigation, but that was in the context of a stage before evidence had commenced. The ratio expressly contemplates the utility of interrogatories in avoiding iding unnecessary evidence, not interrupting evidence already underway. The factual matrix in Bharat Industries's Industries's case (supra) involved delivery of interrogatories at the pre-evidence pre evidence stage, whereas in the present case, the plaintiff's evidence has begun and and several opportunities have already passed.
9. The applicability of these decisions is fact fact-specific, specific, and the present case does not present any exceptional circumstance that requires interrogatories to be served despite the advanced stage of trial. The nature ure of the interrogatories here relating to khasra khasra numbers, areas and boundaries, are matters which are better TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.03 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7774-2025 (O&M) -5- established through documentary evidence such as jamabandis,, site plans, and by putting questions during cross-examination.
cross examination. Compelling the pla plaintiff intiff to answer interrogatories on such matters at this late stage would amount to a fishing inquiry rather than legitimate discovery.
10. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 or revisional jurisdiction over such interlocutory or orders ders is limited to examining jurisdictional error, perversity, or patent illegality. The impugned order does not suffer from any such defect. It reflects due consideration of the pleadings, the law, and the purpose of interrogatories under Order 11 CPC. Thee trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously, and no ground is made out to interfere with that discretion.
11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that the trial Court committed no error in dismissing the application filed uunder nder Order 11 Rule 1 CPC. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
December 02, 2025 ((MANDEEP PANNU)
tripti JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking
speaking/non speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
TRIPTI SAINI
2025.12.03 09:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document