Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

34. In Ganga Devi v. Krishna Prasad Sharma A.I.R. 1967 Ori. 19, the Orissa High Court would observe thus:

The main object of interrogatories is to save expenses by enabling a party to obtain an admission from his opponent which makes the burden of proof easier. The interrogatories are permissible with regard to matters which are relevant to the facts directly in issue and would not be extended to prying into the evidence where with the opposite party intends to support his case.

35. In Ashok Kumar v. Dalmia Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research , the gist of the observations made by the Orissa High Court is as follows:

37. In Thakur Prasad v. Md. Sohayal A.I.R. 1977 Pat. 233, the Patna High Court would held thus:

The main object of interrogatories is to save expenses and time by enabling a party to obtain from the opponent information as to facts material to the question in dispute between them and to obtain admissions of any facts which he has to prove on any issue which is raised between them. An admission of the adversary will serve to maintain the case of the party administering the interrogatory or the answer might be destructive of his own.

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.

53. Moreover, I have perused all the interrogatories carefully. I have noticed that some of the interrogatories are fishing in nature and some of them are too cumbersome and oppressive. Some of the other interrogatories may be objected on the ground that the same are scandalous or irrelevant or they do not exhibit bona fide for the purpose of the suit. As a matter of fact, the question numbers 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17 in interrogatories would indicate that the plaintiff wanted to impute allegation through these questions that the defendant had filed a false income-tax return with reference to his income and a false statement with reference to his assets before the higher authorities of the Government.