Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

INTERROGATORIES (O. XI, R. 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 number.........] [The defendant G.H. is required to answer the interrogatories number.........]"

8. However, it has to be examined whether the consequence of the failure of the Plaintiff to answer the interrogatories should entail in dismissal of the suit. In the present case, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff adopted an obstinate attitude and willfully defaulted in answering the interrogatories. The Plaintiff may have acted under the wrong advice on the presumption that the interrogatories were not asked in the prescribed form. In Babbar Sewing Machine Company (supra) it was held:

12. Order XI, Rule 21 of the CPC reads :

"21. Where any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery of inspection of documents, he shall, if a plaintiff, be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution, and, if a defendant, to have his defence; if any, struck out, and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended, and the party interrogating or seeking discovery or inspection may apply to the Court for an order to that effect, and an order may be made accordingly."

9. In the light of the legal position I am of the considered view that instead of dismissal of the suit as sought by the Defendant Nos. 1 (a), 2 and 3 by this application, the Plaintiff is entitled to one more opportunity to answer the interrogatories. It is, therefore, directed that the Plaintiff will now answer the interrogatories sought by the Defendants vide letter dated 19th September, 2012 within eight weeks failing which the suit of the Plaintiff would be liable to be dismissed.