Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In State Bank of India and others Vs. S.N.Goyal, AIR 2008 SC 2594, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that parties to the suit should avail the provisions of Order 11 Rule 1, 12 and 15 and if new ground becomes available on the basis of information secured by discovery, a party can amend his pleadings and introduce new facts and grounds which were not known earlier. In Sonia Senroy Vs. Amit Senroy, AIR 1998 Bombay 302, the Court has held that the interrogatories are not meant to be confined within narrow technical limits. It should be used liberally, whenever it can shorten litigation and serve the interest of justice. In P. Balan Vs. Central Bank of India, Calicut, AIR 2000 Kerala 24, it was held that the interrogatories are to be allowed whenever the answer to them will serve either the party in proving his case or to destroying the case of the adversary. The power is to be exercised with care and caution so that it is not abused by any party. Interrogatories have to be confined to the facts which are relevant to the matters in question in the suit. A plaint or a written statement may not sufficiently disclose the nature of dispute of the case, and to make good the deficiency, either party can serve interrogatories in writing which, when answered, would enable the Court to decide the suit without probing into the questions elaborately in the light of oral and documentary evidence. It was held to the following effect :

"8. 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 or or destroying the case o the adversary. The answering of the interrogatories might save expenses and shorten the litigation by enabling a party to obtain from the other side information as to material facts regarding the questions in dispute or issues raised or to obtain admission of facts which the plaintiff has to prove on any issue. Answering the interrogatories might often shorten the trial proceedings and save the time of the court and parties besides saving expenses for summoning witnesses, documents and the like. As a general rule, therefore, interrogatories are to be allowed whenever the answer to them will serve either to help the party in proving his case or to destroying the case of the adversary. The power is not meant to be confined within narrow limits. It should be used liberally whenever it can shorten the litigation and serve the interest of justice. Nevertheless, the power is to be exercised with care and caution so that it is not abused by any party. Interrogatories have to be confined to the facts which are relevant to the matters in question in the suit. A plaint or a written statement may not sufficiently disclose the nature of parties to the case, and to make good the deficiency, either party can serve interrogatories in writing which, when answered, would enable the court to decide the suit without probing into the questions elaborately in the light of oral and documentary evidence. The courts have to approach the question in a broad perspective aimed at seeing whether the grant thereof will enable fair trial and would save the cost of litigation to the parties. Of course, the possible objections specifically mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XI, C.P.C. also have to be considered. The interrogatories have to bear a reasonable close connection with the matters in question. A party is entitled to administer interrogatories to his opponents to obtain admission from him with the object of facilitating proof o his case as also to save the costs which may otherwise be incurred in adducing evidence to prove the necessary facts."

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. It is not the case of the petitioner that the interrogatories served upon the petitioner do not relate to the matter in issue or they are frivolous and vexatious.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that answer of the interrogatories relates to evidence in the suit and, thus, petitioner cannot be compelled to answer interrogatories. The defendant-petitioner has already filed his written statement and taken a stand relying on an agreement to sell. The interrogatories served upon the petitioner pertain to execution of the agreement, serving of a notice, reply to the notice and whether the plaintiff had Rs.20 lac on the date of execution of the sale deed and has sought information in respect of his readiness to perform the contract.