Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. In the present case, the interrogatories seek by the plaintiff side are within the subject matter of the suit, hence, this court is of the view that it is in the fitness of thing allow the present interrogatories deliver to the defendant for obtaining discovery of facts relevant to the matter in dispute. Hence, I pass following order:

ORDER The present application Exhibit 22 is hereby allowed.
Plaintiff is permitted to deliver to the defendant the interrogatories attached along with the present application and defendant is also directed to answer the interrogatories within one month from the date of this order."

9.2 The Delhi High Court in the case of Sharda Dhir Vs. Ashok Kumar Makhija & Others, reported in 2002 (64) DRJ 713, has observed as under:

"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."
10.2 The power to allow interrogatories is always at the discretion of the Court. Such discretion extends to allowing or refusing particular interrogatories. A Court of appeal or revision will not lightly interfere with exercise of discretion by the trial Court unless the Court has acted on a wrong principle of law.
10.3 Interrogatories may be administered by any party to a suit to his adversary. They may relate to any matter in issue in the suit.
11. Considering Section 30 of the Code, the contention raised by the petitioner that the application below Exh.22 is not maintainable and is pre-mature, the said contention is not acceptable to this Court. The court below considered the reply filed by the petitioner herein and held that the object of delivering interrogatories is seeking information from the other side about certain facts which are to be proved in the case.

Interrogatories can be for discovery of documents as well as facts. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the concerned Court held that while it is not permissible for making fishing inquiries from the other side, the interrogatories must be confined to the facts which are relevant to the matters-in- question of the suit. The concerned Court, in the application below Exh.22, thought it fit to allow the interrogatories delivered to the petitioner for discovery of facts relevant and NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12363/2018 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2023 undefined germane for the dispute-in-question.