Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

DISCOVERY, INSPECTION AND ADMISSION NO.1 ORDER FOR DELIVERY OF INTERROGATORIES (Order XI, Rule 1) In the Court of ......

Civil Suit No.        of          19../20..
A.B.........
..Plaintiff.
against
C.D.E.F. and G.H. 
..Defendants.
No.2 
INTERROGATORIES
(Order XI Rule 4)
(TITLE AS IN NO.1, SUPRA)
 

Interrogatories on behalf of the above-named (plaintiff or defendant C.D) for the examination of the above-named (defendants E.F. and G.H. or plaintiff)

1. Did not, etc.

2. Has not etc., etc., etc., etc., (The defendant E.F. is required to answer the interrogatories numbered....) (The defendant G.H. is required to answer the interrogatories numbered....) Rule 6 of Order XI of the Code deals with objections to interrogatories by answer. Rule 7 of the said order deals with setting aside and striking out interrogatories. Rule 8 of the said order deals with affidavit in answer, filing. Rule 9 of the said order dealing with form of affidavit in answer states that an affidavit in answer to interrogatories shall be in Form No. 3 in Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances may require.

Form No. 3 of Appendix C of the Code is as hereunder:

Answer to Interrogatories (Order XI Rule 9) (Title as in No. 1, supra) The answer of the above-named defendant E.F. to the interrogatories for his examination by the above-named plaintiff.

In answer to the said interrogatories, I, the above-named E.F., make oath and say as follows:

1.} } Enter answer to interrogatories in paragraphs numbered consecutively.

2.}

3. I object to answer the interrogatories numbered...on the ground that (state grounds of objection).

4. In the judgment cited 2006 (1) Law Summary 465 supra, the learned Judge had referred to Koduri Krishna Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Babbar Sewing Machine Co. v. Tirloknath and held as hereunder:

3. The procedure for discovery and inspection is ordered in Order XI. Rules 1 to 11 and Rules 21 to 23 deal with interrogatories, whereas Rules 12 to 20 deal with procedure for discovery of documents. Insofar as interrogatories are concerned, the law provides for three stages. In the first stage, the plaintiff or the defendant has to obtain leave of the Court for delivering interrogatories in writing on a defendant or defendants or the plaintiff or plaintiffs, as the case may be. Such interrogatories had to be separately served on each person requiring to answer. After obtaining permission from the trial Court, the interrogatories are to be served in Form No. 2 in Appendix-C on the person who is required to answer. The person receiving interrogatories is required to answer by way of an affidavit (See Rule 8 of Order XI). In second stage, if a person on whom interrogatories are served does not comply with by filing affidavit in answer to interrogatories, the plaintiff or the defendant who obtained leave of the Court to serve interrogatories has to again file another application under Order XI Rule 11 of CPC. Such application can be filed when the person omits to answer interrogatories or answers interrogatories insufficiently. At that stage, the Court can compel the person to answer interrogatories by passing an order either requiring to answer the interrogatories by affidavit or by vis-vis. In case such an order is not complied with, the same would result in penal consequences which can neither be dismissal of the suit or striking off the defence. That is the final stage, which is provided under Order XI Rule 21 CPC, which reads as under.

2. Where an order is made under Sub-rule (1) dismissing any suit, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

4. The above rule can be enforced only when a party fails to comply with an order to answer interrogatories. Granting of leave under Rule 1 does not amount to passing order to answer interrogatories. At the first stage the Court merely grants leave to party to serve interrogatories to other party and no order as such is passed compelling to answer the interrogatories. Therefore, as a condition precedent for exercising power under Order XI Rule 11 of CPC there ought to have been order under Rule 11. Further, while passing an order either dismissing suit or striking off defence the trial Court is bound to issue notice to the parties and afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard.