Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. It would now be pertinent to examine the scope of Order 11, C. P. C. The main object of interrogatories is to save expenses by enabling a party to obtain an admission from his opponent which makes the burden of proof easier. It would certainly not to be extended to prying into the evidence wherewith the opposite party intends to support his case. The interrogatories are permissible with regard to matters which are relevant to the facts directly in issue. In certain circumstances, however they may be extended to other facts not directly in issue, but in connection with which existence, non-existence, nature or extent of right, liability or disability, asserted or denied in the suit or proceeding necessarily follows. Sometimes it is used to show that the defence set up is unfounded. These, in substance, are generally the matters to which interrogatories should be directed. Under Order 11, C. P C, interrogatories can be administered in the same manner as is done in England, for discovering the facts in issue : AIR 1914 Cal 767. In Attorney General v. Gaskil, (1882) 20 Ch D 5t9, Cotton L. J. observed :

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."
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.