Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. After the service of the interrogatories upon the company, a twenty page application was filed on March 27, 1968, on behalf of the company in which general objections were taken to all the interrogatories and objections were also taken to each of the interrogatories. The application purports to be made under Order XI, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code. The prayer was that the whole set of interrogatories may be struck out on the ground that they have been exhibited unreasonably and are vexatious, prolix, oppressive, unnecessary and scandalous. Each interrogatory had, therefore, to be scrutinized together with the objections. The affidavit filed in support of the petition, the counter-affidavit, and the rejoinder affidavit had also to be thoroughly examined. The objections on behalf of the company were three-fold: firstly, that the so-called interrogatories fall outside the scope and purpose of interrogatories which can be served under order XI, Civil Procedure Code ; secondly, that they go outside the scope of the petition itself even after it had been amended ; and, thirdly, that the whole purpose of the interrogatories was mala fide and that they constitute an attempt to defame the company by raising matters which had no material bearing on the issues involved.

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.

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.