Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Order XI, Civil Procedure Code, itself indicates the limits within which the power to require information through interrogatories ought to be confined. Order XI, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, contains the proviso that " interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit shall be deemed to be irrelevant notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness". There is then the right given to an objector under Order XT, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, to refuse 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 that the matters inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage or on any other ground". Finally, there is also the power given to the court, under Order XI, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the whole set of interrogatories or any part of the interrogatories on the ground that they have been exhibited " unreasonably or vexatiously " or to strike them out on the ground that they are " prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous ". For this purpose, the objector has to make an application within seven days of the service of the interrogatories and the power to order the interrogatories. Thus, the right to serve interrogatories and the power to order the interrogatories to be served and answered should be used with considerable care and caution so that it is not abused by any party. This is clear from the repeated safeguards mentioned above contained in Order XI against misuse of the power to require answer to interrogatories.

7. Some argument took place on the question whether the objections put forward by the company would fall under Order XI, Rule 6, or under Order XI, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code. It was contended by Mr. Brij Lal Gupta on behalf of the company that, logically speaking, the stage of objections under Order XI, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, comes before the objections to answer interrogatories which are provided for by Order XI, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code. I do not think that Rules 6 and 7 of Order XI, Civil Procedure Code, can be construed in such a narrow manner as not to overlap. The order in which they occur and the contents of these rules make it very difficult to say that the scope of each is really exclusive. It is, however, true that the application under Order XI, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, must be made within seven days after the service of the interrogatories. In other words, the stage for an application under Order XI, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, comes immediately after the service of the interrogatories whereas the objections to particular interrogatories may be taken either immediately or after seven days of the service of the interrogatories in the affidavit in answer to the interrogatories. Thus, a party may choose to answer certain interrogatories and yet object to certain other interrogatories under Order XI, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, while answering the remaining interrogatories. The interrogatories have to be answered by means of an affidavit filed within ten days or within such other time as the court may allow under Order XI, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code. Order XI, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, is intended to cover objections which may be taken in the affidavit to be filed in answer to the interrogatories. As the time allowed for objections under Order XI, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, is longer than the time permissible under Order XI, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, it is possible to contend that the stage for objections under Order XI, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, comes before the stage of objections under Order XI, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code. But, in my opinion, the correct position is that the two rules are to a certain extent overlapping and must be read together. Within seven days of the service of the interrogatories objections can be taken both under Order XI, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, as well as under Order XI, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code. The language of the two rules, viewed together, indicates that Order XI, Rule 6, is intended for objections to particular interrogatories whereas Order XI, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, is meant for a wholesale attack upon the very basis of the interrogatories. An application under Order XI, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code can go beyond objecting to the propriety of particular interrogatories, and by means of it, a counter-attack can be made against the whole set of interrogatories or a part of them on the ground that they are mala fide.

8. In the case before me the objector has launched an attack upon the whole of interrogatories and also objects to answering the particular interrogatories on a number of grounds. Although the application is one under Order XI, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, it covers objections to individual interrogatories as well. It is not necessary for me to take up interrogatories one by one. In the course of the examination of the assertions made in the petition and in the affidavit supporting the petition, the counter-affidavit in reply, and the rejoinder-affidavit, I have been struck by the considerable number of facts which are already on the record. The contention put forward on behalf of the objector that whatever answers could be given by the objector on the material allegations in the petition are already contained in the counter-affidavit seems justified to a considerable extent. There also seems to be substance in the complaint that some of the interrogatories go beyond seeking admissions or asking for an explanation of anything left in a dubious state by the affidavits and are designed to constitute an inquiry into the manner in which the company has been conducting its business, entering into various transactions, and incurring various liabilities. As the extent to which such an inquiry could be permitted in proceedings for the winding up of a company itself appeared doubtful, the whole question of the nature and object of winding up proceedings had to be gone into in considering whether the company should be compelled to answer the interrogatories which had been served.

9. I may here mention that there appeared to be an omission on the part of the petitioner who urged that the company had failed to answer questions. The petitioner had made no application under Order XI, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, for compelling the opposite party or any of its officebearers to answer any question. At the close of the arguments, however, an application was made under Order XI, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, by Mr. Jagdish Swarup on behalf of the petitioner praying for an order to compel the company and its representatives mentioned in the application to answer the questions contained in the interrogatories. This application also does not specify which question should be answered by which party mentioned in the application. Be that as it may, the objection on behalf of the company is that this application is misconceived. The stand taken by Mr. Brij Lal Gupta, on behalf of the company, is that the company has not omitted to answer any question. Indeed, he stated that the company is prepared to answer any question if the court so directs and that the stage for an application under Order XI, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, would arise only when an affidavit mentioned in Order XI, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, does not contain answers to the interrogatories. The contention is that the stage for an affidavit in answer to the interrogatories under Order XI, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, has not been disposed of. But I find that Order XI, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, does not automatically and without an order of the court give an objector time beyond ten days to object to particular interrogatories or to the whole set of interrogatories. If there is no affidavit within the time fixed by law it could be said that the objector had omitted to answer the interrogatories. The application under Order XI, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, was made at a very late stage. Nevertheless, I will consider the application and decide it now together with the application under Order XI, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code.