Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The right to discovery remains the same, that is to say, a party has a right to interrogate with a view to obtaining an admission from his opponent of every thing which is material and relevant to the issue raised on the pleadings. It was said in argument that it is not discovery where the plaintiff himself already knows the fact. But that is a mere play on the word 'discovery'. Discovery is not limited to giving the plaintiff a knowledge of that which he does not know, but includes the getting an admission of anything which he is to prove on any issue which is raised between him and the defendant. To show that the pleadings have raised issues and that therefore, interrogatories should not be allowed is another fallacy. The object of the pleadings is to ascertain what issues are. The object of the interrogatories is not to learn what the issues are but to see whether the party intelligently can obtain an admission from his opponent which makes the burden of proof easier than it otherwise would have been."

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.

10. The next question for consideration is as to the scope of interference in Civil Revision under Section 115 C. P. C. There is no dispute that an appeal does not lie against the impugned interlocutory order though an appeal lies against a final order under Section 24 of the Act. The learned District Judge rejected the application for service of interrogatories on the grounds (i) that Order 11, C. P. C., has no application to interlocutory matters, and (ii) that interrogatories are not permissible on merits. In view of my finding that order 11 C. P. C. applies to a proceeding under Section 24 of the Act, the learned District Judge failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him by saying that, the application was not maintainable. This Court can interfere with such order under Section 115(1)(b), C. P. C. Whether interrogatories should be allowed or not is a question within the jurisdiction of the Court. The error of procedure committed by the learned Judge lay in the fact that he did not attempt to formulate the correct legal position and to apply the same to the facts of the case. His ultimate bald decision without reasoning was affected and thus the error of procedure committed is material. The resultant conclusion is that the Court, while deciding a question within jurisdiction, acted in the exercise of it with material irregularity under Section 116(c). (See AIR 1949 PC 156 and AIR 1959 SC 492). Under Section 115, C. P. C., it is open to the High Court to make such order as it thinks fit. The order is quashed and the application for interrogatories is allowed as already indicated.