Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"4. Order XI of our Civil Procedure Code closely follows the rules of practice and procedure evolved in England. I have, therefore, considered it not improper to refer to the object of interrogatories according to the rules which prevail in England. The power to serve interrogatories is not meant to be confined within narrow technical limits. The subject-matter of Order XI, Civil Procedure Code, is: "Discovery and Inspection ". It has to be remembered that these remedies were evolved by the Chancellor's Court of Equity. The power to order discovery by means of interrogatories should certainly be used liberally whenever it can shorten litigation and serve the interests of justice as observed in Jamaitrai v. Motilal Chamaria MANU/WB/0141/1960., by A.N. Ray J. of the Calcutta High Court." (emphasis supplied)

8. Mr. Sibal further submits that at present, this Court is only examining the aspect whether leave should be granted to the defendant No.5/ applicant to deliver interrogatories to the plaintiff. At this stage, the Court is not concerned with the objections that the plaintiff may have to answering all or any of the interrogatories. Once the said interrogatories have been served, upon grant of leave by the Court, such objection could be raised, and adjudicated.

9. In support of this submission, Mr. Sibal places reliance on Smt. Sharda Dhir Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Makhija and Others, 99 (2002) DLT

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)

24. In Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. (supra), the Allahabad High Court was conscious of the distinction between the objective of Order XI CPC and of the right of cross-examination. In paragraph 5 of the said decision, the Court observed as follows:

"5. There are, however, limits to the utility of the power to order interrogatories to be answered. Those limits are set by the rules of relevancy, by the demands of decency and propriety, and by the even wider basic requirements of fair play, justice and equity. For example, although one of the objects of interrogatories is to ascertain an adversary's case, yet they cannot be permitted to be used by a party merely to obtain a disclosure beforehand of evidence supporting the adversary's case as this would give one party an unfair advantage over the other. The object of Order XI, Civil Procedure Code, is more akin to that of Order X, Civil Procedure Code, than to that of cross-examination."