Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. On the other hand, Mr. Sundar Rajan, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff, the respondent herein, would submit the following:

The order impugned is perfectly legal. The interrogatories would only contain the questions which are quite relevant to the suit. If those questions are answered by the defendant, most of the legal questions would get settled and it would help the civil court to dispose of the suit fairly and save the time and cost. If the interrogatories are answered by the defendant, the same would narrow the scope of the suit and controversies at issue. Though detailed reasons have not been given in the impugned order, the conclusion by allowing the application under Order 11, Rule 1, C.P.C. is correct. At any rate, invoking revisional jurisdiction is not permissible, since the impugned order does not call for interference so as to attract the provisions of Section 115,C.P.C.

30. In Delhi Vansapati Syndicate v. K.C. Chawala , it is held as follows:

It is true that a party is not entitled to require its adversary to answer interrogatories, the effect whereof would be to enable it to know the facts, which exclusively constitute the evidence of his opponent's case. But, it is equally true that it can administer interrogatories to its opponent, to obtain admissions from him to everything that on the pleadings of the parties is material for the decision of the case, with the object of facilitating the proof of its own case, as also saving the costs which it may otherwise have to incur on adducing evidence to prove the necessary facts. As observed by their Lordships in Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi A.I.R. 7972 S.C. 1302. The interrogatories must have reasonably close connection with matters in question.

46. The court while dealing with the application with reference to the discovery of interrogatories has to necessarily take into the provisions of Order 11, Rule 6, C.P.C. Order 11, Rule 6 is as follows:

Objections to interrogatories by answer: Any objection to answering any interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit, or that the matters inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage (or on the ground of privilege or on any other ground), may be taken in the affidavit in answer.

54. Further, other questions also would not relate to any matters in question, as they have no close connection with the issue framed in this case. Even if these questions are answered, the proceedings in the present suit would not be minimised, as the connected other suits have to be tried along with this suit.

55. Under these circumstances, permitting the interrogatories and asking the defendant to answer the interrogatories in order to dispose of the suit would definitely affect the right of the defendant to establish his case as put forth in his written statement by giving oral and documentary evidence on his behalf before the court. Therefore, the order which would affect the right of the defendant the petitioner herein, would certainly suffer from the infirmity, which is liable to be set aside.