Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. At this stage, it is deemed expedient to advert to Order 11, Rule 21 CPC which provides as under:-

"21. Non-compliance with order for discovery.-(1) Where any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery or inspection of documents, he shall, if a plaintiff, be liable to have his suit dismissed for Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:29.08.2022 15:48:03 want of prosecution, and, if a defendant, to have his defence, if any, struck out, and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended, and the party interrogating or seeking discovery or inspection may apply to the Court for an order to that effect and an order may be made on such application accordingly, after notice to the parties and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

23. Coming back to the facts of the present case, it is observed that the Trial Court vide order 01.08.2019 directed the defendants to answer interrogatories. However, the same were not answered by them and they rather chose to challenge the order dated 01.08.2019 and avoided answering the interrogatories. It was when this Court, vide judgment dated 06.12.2019, called upon the defendants to explain their non-compliance and answer the interrogatories, that the interrogatories supplied by the plaintiffs came to be answered.

25. On a reading of Order 11 Rule 21 CPC, this Court is of the opinion that a party is obligated to answer the interrogatory served upon it with the leave of Court and there shall not be willful non- compliance of the order of the Court. Further, under Rule 11, where any person omits to answer or answers insufficiently, the party interrogating may apply to the Court for an order requiring him to answer or to answer further, as the case may be. Insufficient answers would mean incomplete or incoherent answers, and not incorrect answers, since at the time of exchange of interrogatories and answers between the parties, the Court is not required to conduct a summary trial to assess the veracity of the answers. Consequence of striking off of the defendant's defence is a result only of 'failure' to answer the interrogatory, and does not follow when the answer may not be to the liking of the person delivering the interrogatory or allegedly incorrect.

26. Under Order 11, Rule 22 CPC, the answer given in response to an interrogatory can be used in evidence, and therefore, its correctness Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:29.08.2022 15:48:03 and veracity will be established only at trial. Undoubtedly, it is incumbent upon a person answering the interrogatories to be truthful in the answers, and if the person is eventually found to have given false answers, they can be visited with consequences like perjury, in accordance with law, since the answer given in response to interrogatory can be used in evidence under Rule 22. All such consequences are within the domain of the Trial Court which shall eventually deal with the evidence produced by the parties before it.