Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Mr. Mohapatra in support of the order of the learned District Judge advanced the following contentions:

(i) The application calling upon the plain tiff to answer the interrogatories is in relation to the application under Section 24 of the Act, which is an interlocutory matter arising out of the suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Act. Section 21 of the Act docs not override Section 141, C. P. C. ami Order 11, C. P. C. has no application to the interlocutory proceeding under Section 24 of the Act.
Order 11, Rule 6, C. P. C., enacts the nature of objections that can be advanced to the interrogatories. It says that 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 enquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage, or on any other ground, may be taken on affidavit in answer. To say that the question must not be fishing only means that the question must relate to definite, existing and relevant circumstances and must not be merely in the hope of discovering some flaw in the opponents case, or with the object of filling a blank in the interrogatories, see (1936) 2 All ER 1334 Rofe v. Kevorkian.

9. When did you and your brother inherited the ancestral joint family property and joint family business ?

It is the positive case of the plaintiff that his income is about Rs. 100 per month. Interrogatories 2 to 6 are directed to get information and admission from the plaintiff with regard to the income of the firm and the quantum of plaintiff's interest therein. The questions are not fishing and are directly relevant to matters in issue. The answers to interrogatories will shorten the trial and may also show that the defence set up is unfounded. These interrogatories come within the purview of the rule enunciated above and must be allowed. Interrogatories 8 and 9 shall also be allowed on the same reasoning. Mr. Mohanty does not press interrogatories 1 and 7.

11. All the contentions raised by Mr. Mohapatra fail. The order of the learned District Judge is set aside and the Civil Revision is allowed with costs. Hearing fee of Rs. 50.

Plaintiff is directed to answer the interrogatories before the District Judge within three weeks from to-day. The District Judge is directed to dispose of the proceeding under Section 24 as quickly as possible. The records be sent back to the lower Court without delay.