Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(12) It is, therefore, to be seen whether the impugned order has occasioned failure of justice or causes irreparable injury to the petitioner against whom it was made. It is, of course, conceded that even if the impugned order is reversed the suit will not come to an end as contemplated in clause (a) of the proviso. Further, it has to be seen if it is vitiated by any of the vices envisaged in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 115(1).

(13) Under Order Xi Rule 1 any party to a suit may with the leave of the Court deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties for eliciting any relevant information, admissions or evidence of 448 material facts to be adduced at the trial and to save expenses of lengthy evidence. The main object of delivering interrogatories by a party is to discover facts in order to facilitate the proof of his own case. However, the power to allow interrogatories to be administered by one parly to another is always subject to the discretion of the court. The discretion extends to allowing or refusing particular interrogatories. See para 103 of Volume 13, Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, wherein it is further stated that the Court of Appeal will not lightly interfere with the judge's exercise of his discretion, unless he acts on a wrong principle. That besides, it is well settled that interrogatories must be confined to the matters which are in issue or sufficiently material at the particular stage of the action at which they are sought to be delivered or to the relief claimed. [Para 105, Halsbury's Laws of England (supra)]. The proviso to Order Xi Rule 1 in terms states that the interrogatories which do not relate to any matter in question in the suit shall bs deemed irrelevant notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness. In other words, the interrogatories sought to be served must have reasonably close connection with the matters in question. They must not be unreasonable, vexatious, prolix, oppressive or scandalous. Further, they must not bs of a fishing nature i.e. they must refer to some distinct and existing state of circumstances and must not be put merely in the hope of discovering something which may help a party interrogating to make out some case. [See Rofe v. Kevorkion, 1936(2) All Er 1334].

(14) The learned Additional District Judge has, to the course of the impugned order, said: "I find that there are certain information which is in possession of the plaintiff and that is material for proper and complete adjudication of the case and to cut short evidence."

(15) Obviously he has allowed those interrogatories which he considered lo be relevant and material for the proper and complete adjudication of the case and to cut short evidence. This is not an irrelevant consideration which would vitiate the order in not allowing the rest of the interrogatories. It is settled law that where a court has jurisdiction to determine any question and it determines that question it would not be said that it has acted illegally or with material irregularity because it has come to an erroneous decision on a question of fact or even of law. (See Rajah Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh. 11 Indian Appeals 237). Thus. the mere fact that the decision of the court below is wrong affords no ground for the interference of the High Court under section 115.

(16) I have perused all the interrogatories carefully and I have noticed that some of the interrogatories are certainly fishing in nature, some of them are too cumbersome and oppressive while one or two may be said to be somewhat relevant to the point in issue. All the same that will be no ground for interference in revision, for withholding permission to administer interrogatories cannot be said to have occasioned a failure of justice or caused irreparable injury to the petitioner. The onus of proving issue No. 3 in respect of which interrogatories were sought to be exhibited by the petitioner lies squarely on the petitioner and he still has ample opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his contention. Reference in this context may be made with advantage to Food Corporation of India (supra) in which an order to 449 produce certain documents for the inspection of the plaintiff was challenged, M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (supra) in which an order made under Order Xi Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code and Raj Mohan Saha v. Maharaja Srila Sri Jukha Kirit Bikram Kishore Deba Barma Manikya Bahadur, Air 1961 Tripura 23, in which an order stricking out the interrogatories under Order Xi Rules 1 and 2 was challenged. The gist of all these decisions is that if a party is not allowed to serve interrogatories as being unnecessary or irrelevant or if the Court considers that the answers to the interrogatories furnished by the opposite party are incomplete, insufficient and/or ambiguous, the concerned party cannot be said to be materially affected. As already observed, there is nothing self-evident or palpably wrong with the impugned order and by no stretch of reasoning it can be said to be a case of material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction by the trial Court.