Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. This application has been preferred by defendant No.5 under Order XI read with Section 151 CPC for seeking leave to answer interrogatories contained in Form No.2 under Appendix „C‟ of the CPC, which are filed along with the application, and for a further direction that the said interrogatories be answered on oath by the plaintiff within the time prescribed under Rule 1 of Order XI CPC. The stage at which the present application has been filed by the applicant/defendant No.5 is set out in the application itself in paragraph 2 in the following words:

350. In this case, the Joint Registrar had rejected the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1 for service of interrogatories on defendant No.1. A chamber appeal had been preferred by the plaintiff. The Court in the aforesaid decision had, inter alia, observed as follows:

"9 ..... ..... ..... It is now well settled that administering of Interrogatories is to be encouraged as it is a means of obtaining admissions of parties and tends to shorten litigation. As a general rule the Interrogatory should be allowed, whether the answer to them would either strengthen the case of the party administering them or to destroy the case of the adversary. The court should not be hyper-technical at the stage of the service of the Interrogatories. This rule is to be used liberally whenever it could shorten the litigation and serve the interest of justice. Indeed, it cannot be used as a means of obtaining information which may be admissible during the oral cross-examination of a party and his witnesses. Interrogatories cannot be disallowed merely because the party interrogating has other means of proving the facts in question. One of the important purpose of interrogatories is to obtain admission of material fact of a case. Under this rule the Interrogatories may be served with the leave of the court by one party to the other in a suit: (1) to ascertain the nature of his opponent's case and material facts Constituting it and (2) to support his own case by obtaining admissions or by impeaching or destroying his opponent's case. The Interrogatories which do not relate to any matter in question involved in the suit, indeed, would be deemed irrelevant even though they might be admissible in oral cross- examination of the witnesses. Rule (6) of Order 11 makes it further clear. It provides that objection to answer an Interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit, or with the matter inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage or on the ground of privilege, or on any other ground will be taken in the affidavit in answer. Leave to deliver interrogatories does not imply an order to answer them and any objection to answer can be taken under the Rule. The court is required to decide whether the appellant should be allowed to interrogate the other side, but it is not to determine what question should the opposite party to be compelled to answer.

10. As observed above at the preliminary stage of hearing on the application the court is required to decide whether the applicant should be allowed to interrogate the other side, but is not to determine what question should the opposite party be compelled to answer. Interrogatories may then be served on the other party for his answer to that on affidavit. The party, who has been served with Interrogatories, will then answer the Interrogatories on affidavit or raise objections about the relevancy or they being of scandalous nature, irrelevant, not bona fide, or not to be answered on the ground of privilege etc., in answer. The court then may consider and dispose of the Interrogatories. It will not for the court at this stage of granting leave to consider what particular questions the party interrogated should be compelled to answer. Proper time for considering that question is after the party interrogated has filed its affidavit in answer." (emphasis supplied)

10. Mr. Sibal also places reliance on the decision of this Court in Canara Bank Vs. Rajiv Tyagi & Associates and Another, 166 (2010) DLT 523, wherein the Court was dealing with a case for recovery of balance amount stated to be due on a large number of bills raised by the plaintiff on the defendant bank. The queries/ questions with respect to the accounts, it was held, are best answered by delivery of interrogatories. The Court was of the view that it would be better that such queries are answered by delivering interrogatories rather than in cross-examination. Mr. Sibal submits that it is no answer to the present application, that the answers to the various queries are available in the record of the defendant No.5/ applicant. The Court rejected a similar argument in Canara Bank (supra) by observing that: