Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The application was considered by the learned Joint Registrar and by the impugned order he held that the defendant No. 1 had already filed the copies of Income Tax clearance certificate, completion certificate, a letter sent by defendant No. 2 Canara Bank that the loan taken by the defendant No. 1 in respect of the property has been cleared. The income tax certificate is dated 5th March, 1997 and the completion certificate is dated 6th March, 1997 and the bank letter is also dated 6th March, 1997. All these documents indicate that on 10th March, 1997 which was the date on which sale deed was to be executed, the defendant No. 2 had all the relevant documents in his possession. As to whether these documents were in fact in possession of the defendant No. 1 is a matter of evidence and even if the Interrogatories were answered the documents in question would be required to be proved by calling the witnesses from the concerned department. The learned Joint Registrar has observed that the list of witnesses has already been filed which shows that the plaintiff desired to summon all the necessary record which relates to the present Interrogatories. In his view no useful purpose was going to be served by asking the defendant No. 1 to serve the Interrogatories since these facts would be proved at the trial on production of the relevant record and the evidence.

9. This application was also opposed by the defendant alleging that the delay is not bona fide and the appeal should be dismissed.

The defendant No. 1 filed a reply to this appeal and justified the order of the Joint Registrar.

I have given careful thought to the submission made by the counsel for the parties at the Bar.

The application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC. This rule allowed the court to grant leave to any of the party of the suit to deliver Interrogatories in writing for examination of the opposite party relating to any matter in question in the suit. The object of this rule is that a party knows the nature of his opponent's case before hand in order to meet it at the hearing. Indeed, he is not entitled to know the fact which constitute evidence to prove the opponent's case. The nature of the case of the parties is disclosed in their respective pleadings but in a given case the pleadings may not sufficiently disclose the nature of the parties' case. In order to make good deficiency this rule has been enacted. It is now well settled that administering of Interrogatories is to be encouraged as it is a means of obtaining admissions of parties and tends to shorten litigation. As a general rule the Interrogatory should be allowed, whether the answer to them would either strengthen the case of the party administering them or to destroy the case of the adversary. The court should not be hyper-technical at the stage of the service of the Interrogatories. This rule is to be used liberally whenever it could shorten the litigation and serve the interest of justice. Indeed, it cannot be used as a means of obtaining information which may be admissible during the oral cross-examination of a party and his witnesses. Interrogatories cannot be disallowed merely because the party interrogating has other means of proving the facts in question. One of the important purpose of interrogatories is to obtain admission of material fact of a case. Under this rule the Interrogatories may be served with the leave of the court by one party to the other in a suit: (1) to ascertain the nature of his opponent's case and material facts constituting it and (2) to support his own case by obtaining admissions or by impeaching or destroying his opponent's case. The Interrogatories which do not relate to any matter in question involved in the suit, indeed, would be deemed irrelevant even though they might be admissible in oral cross-examination of the witnesses. Rule (6) of Order 11 makes it further clear. It provides that objection to answer an Interrogatory on the ground that it is scandulous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit, or with the matter inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage or on the ground of privilege, or on any other ground will be taken in the affidavit in answer. Leave to deliver interrogatories does not imply an order to answer them and any objection to answer can be taken under the Rule. The court is required to decide whether the appellant should be allowed to interrogate the other side, but it is not to determine what question should the opposite party to be compelled to answer.

10. As observed above at the preliminary stage of hearing on the application the court is required to decide whether the applicant should be allowed to interrogate the other side, but is not to determine what question should the opposite party be compelled to answer. Interrogatories may then be served on the other party for his answer to that on affidavit. The party, who has been served with Interrogatories, will then answer the Interrogatories on affidavit or raise objections about the relevancy or they being of scandalous nature, irrelevant, not bona fide, or not to be answered on the ground of privilege etc., in answer. The court then may consider and dispose of the Interrogatories. It will not for the court at this stage of granting leave to consider what particular questions the party interrogated should be compelled to answer. Proper time for considering that question is after the party interrogated has filed its affidavit in answer.

11. In the instant case the plaintiff has applied for leave to serve Interrogatories on the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 has filed a reply, generally denying the allegations but not giving specific answer to the pointed questions put in the Interrogatories. The answer was also not on affidavit.

12. The procedure adopted by the learned Joint Registrar in dismissing the application, is not consistent with Rule 1 of Order 11. By a perfunctory order he has held that the defendant has already filed documents regarding Income-tax clearance certificate, the completion certificate and a letter that the loan amount has been paid back to the bank and they may be proved by evidence of witnesses. The Joint Registrar after he was of the view that the interrogatories are relevant for supporting the case of the appellant or impeach the case of the defendant, should have asked the defendant to answer the Interrogatories on affidavit. Thereafter the Joint Registrar should have considered which of the Interrogatory should the defendant No. 1 be compelled to answer. If an objection is raised about irrelevancy or otherwise of the Interrogatories the same may also be decided at that stage. The Joint Registrar in his order seems to have disallowed interrogatories on the ground that defendant had filed some document, which are answer to the interrogatories, which is not the correct approach. The impugned order, therefore, is liable to be set aside.