Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. 'How many contracts for April-May delivery were performed by actual weighment of ready linseed and how many contracts for Bhadarwa delivery were so performed (sic).

5. The plaintiffs filed their answer on the 29th February 1912.

6. They objected to answering interrogatories 1 and 2 on the ground that they had no possible reference to the defences raised in the suit.

7. They objected to answering interrogatories 3, 4 and 5 on the following grounds, that they were administered solely with the object of fishing out a case for the defendant and getting information of the plaintiffs' general dealings and transactions, and their general business, that they were irrelevant to the issues to be tried and, in any event, could only be asked in cross-examination, that as the defendant admitted that his application was made expressly for the purpose of saving the time of the Court at the hearing, the plaintiffs now knew what questions the defendant wished to ask, and would be ready with the answers from their books if the Judge at the hearing allowed the questions.

8. The defendant thereupon obtained a summons on the 13th March calling upon the plaintiffs to shew cause why they should not forthwith fully answer the interrogatories on the ground that they were relevant and material to his defence, and were neither fishing nor made to annoy the plaintiffs.

9. The first issue on these pleadings will be whether the plaintiffs acted as pakka adatias for the defendant. A pakka adatia has been held by the Court to be a person who enters into a contract of employment with his constituent for reward. The pakka adatia obtains instructions from his client what contracts to eater into, but generally speaking the constituent is not concerned with the method in which his instructions are carried out. It would appear, however, that in the Bombay Presidency it is open to the constituent to prove that the contracts made by the pakka adatia were wagering contracts. So the issue of wager will arise whether the plaintiffs contracted direct with the defendant or acted as his pakka adatias.

18. The Judge in Chambers refused to order the plaintiffs to give further and better answers to interrogatories administered to them. In appeal Manisty J. said that the appeal must be dismissed as the order asked for by the defendant was a mere attempt to get hold of some technical defence to the action. Mathew J. concurring, said that the only effect of allowing the appeal would be to delay the trial and to make an order oppressive to the plaintiffs.

19. In Petre v. Sutherland (1887) 3 T. L. R. 275, the plaintiff, a stock-broker, sued the defendant, his client, for the balance of an account. The defendant, who had had dealings with the plaintiff for fifteen years, claimed to have the accounts reopened for the whole of that period, and with that view to be allowed to examine the plaintiff's books for that period. It was held by the Court of Appeal that the discovery would be useless, unnecessary and oppressive. The defendant was dealing for differences and had taken moneys, but when he was sued for losses he sought to set up a technical defence and to obtain that discovery to assist him. Bowen L. J. observed that the power of discovery was too often abused and its exercise was a matter of discretion. On the other hand in the Universal Stock Exchange Co. v. Crowther (1892) 8 T. L. R. 650, the defendant who was disputing a claim by his stock-brokers on the balance of an account for dealing in shares was allowed to interrogate the plaintiffs as to whether they had, if they acted as brokers, at any time in their 1 possession, or were the owners of, and were entitled to, the various stocks which they claimed to have bought on behalf of the defendant. In the account the same shares appeared to have been bought on one side and sold on the other, and for that reason the interrogatory was allowed.