Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Challenging the order allowing the application for interrogatories under Order 11, Rule 1 of C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff, Nanchil Kumaran, the defendant has filed this civil revision petition.

2. Govindasamy Reddiar filed a suit in O.S.No. 128 of 1989 before the Sub Court, Poonamallee to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 49,000 being the past damages for wrongful use and occupation of the suit property belonging to the plaintiff and for further damages at the rate of Rs. 100 per day as future damages from the date of plaint till the defendant surrenders possession.

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:

28. Let us now look into the principles laid down relating to the above provisions by this Court as well as the other courts one by one.

29. In Bhakta Charan Mallik v. Nataorar Mallik , the Orissa High Court would hold thus:

As a general rule, interrogatories are to be allowed whenever the answer to them will serve either to maintain the case of the party administering them or to destroy the case of the adversary. The power to serve interrogatories as it appears is not meant to be confined within narrow technical limits. It should be used liberally whenever it can shorten the litigation and serve the interest of justice. However, this can be exercised within limits. The power to order interrogatories to be served and answer should be used with considerable care and caution, so that it is not abused by any party. A party entitled to interrogate his opponent with a view to ascertain what case he has to meet and the facts relied on and to limit the generality of the pleadings and find out what is really is in issue. At the same time 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 will not be allowed.

38. In Rajasthan Golden Transport Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Avon F.I. Pvt. Ltd. , the Delhi High Court would observe as follows:

The main object of delivering interrogatories by a party is to discover facts in order to facilitate the proof of his own case. However, the power to allow interrogatories to be administered by one party to another is always subject to the discretion of the court....It is well-settled that interrogatories must be confined to the matters which are in issue or sufficiently material at the particular stage of the action at which they are sought to be delivered or to the relief claimed. The proviso to Order 11, Rule 1 in terms states that the interrogatories which do not relate to any matter in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant notwithstanding that they must be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness....They must not be unreasonable, vexatious, prolix, oppressive or scandalous. Further, they must not be of fishing nature.