Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. In January 1995, the plaintiff, the respondent herein filed a petition in I.A.No. 166 of 1995 in O.S.No. 128 of 1989 under Order 11, Rule 1 of C.P.C. to grant leave to serve interrogatories on the defendant, the petitioner herein to answer the questions. The petitioner also filed a counter stating that the said interrogatories cannot be permitted to be served, as the issues in the present case would have to be decided only after examination of the witnesses during trial.

16. The trial court, while allowing the application, would observe that the interrogatories are relevant to this proceeding and therefore, the application has to be allowed, in order to minimise the trial proceedings. The extract of the said order is as follows:

25. As noted above, there shall be a joint trial of these cases as ordered by the District Court. There is also another suit for partition filed by the defendant in the present suit. This factor also shall be taken into consideration, while deciding as to whether these interrogatories can be permitted to be served at the present stage and whether these would be relevant to the present proceedings.

26. Order 11, Rule 1, C.P.C. reads as follows:

Discovery by interrogatories: In any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of the court may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties. And such interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of such persons is required to answer:

42. At the same time, the interrogatories must be confined to facts which are relevant to the matters in question in the suit. Interrogatories which are really in nature of cross-examination cannot be allowed.

43. While considering the question for leave to deliver interrogatories, the court has to consider whether the interrogatories submitted are necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs.

44. No doubt, it is true that every party to a suit is entitled to know the nature of his opponent's case so that he may know before hand what case he has to meet at the hearing. The nature of a plaintiff's case is disclosed in his plaint. The nature of the defendant's case is disclosed in his written statement. If the plaint and written statement would sufficiently disclose the nature of the respective parties case, then the party may not be permitted to administer the interrogatories in writing to the other through the court.

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.