Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: answer interrogatories in Jamir Hosain Najrul Shaikh vs Hatilmali Taiyabali Trivedi on 21 April, 2023Matching Fragments
4.2.1 He has further drawn my attention towards the provisions of Order XI Rules 1, 2 & 12 of the C.P.C. 4.2.2 He has also relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mamta versus Rishipal CM(M) 265/2022 & CM No.14383/2022, CM No.14384/2022, has observed as under.
"8. Before me, too, Mr. Rana has been unable to draw attention to any decision which precludes a Court from issuing notice on an application preferred under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, seeking leave to serve interrogatories on the opposite party, before granting or refusing to grant, such leave. 9. Order XI Rule 1 reads thus: "1. 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 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19477/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2023 undefined interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of such person is required to answer: Provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same party without an order for that purpose: Provided also that interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness." 10. The use of the word "may" in Order XI Rule 1, when referring to the power of the Court to deliver interrogatories on an application by one of the parties before it, indicates that the right to serve interrogatories is not absolute, and that a discretion vests in the Court in that regard. Serving of interrogatories on the opposite party can only, therefore, by leave of Court. The sequitur would, therefore, be that the opposite party could oppose the grant of such leave. CM(M) 265/2022 Page 5 of 8 Extending of an opportunity to the opposite party to, if it so chooses, oppose grant of leave to serve interrogatories is, therefore, in my view, inbuilt into Order Rule 1. Of course, it may be that, in more cases than not, grant of leave to serve interrogatories may be the norm; that, however, cannot foreclose a Court of its right to issue notice on an application to serve interrogatories on the opposite party, before deciding whether to grant leave or not."
7.1.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. I have also considered the provisions of Order XI Rules 1 & 2 of the C.P.C, which reads as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19477/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2023 undefined "1. 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 person is required to answer: Provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same party without an order for that purpose : Provided also that interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness.
7.1.2 I have also considered the provisions of Order XI Rule 6 of the C.P.C, which is as under: NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19477/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2023 undefined
"6. 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 any other ground, may be taken in the affidavit in answer."