Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner assailing the rejection order submits that in the interest of justice the defendants should be called upon to answer the interrogatories. The averments in paras 5, 13 and 15 in written statement are vague in nature. Therefore, to shorten the litigation the interrogatories should be allowed.

5. The learned advocate for the opp. parties on the other hand, submits, if pleadings are vague then plaintiff has remedy under Order 6 Rule 5, C.P.C. A specific provision being there under Civil Procedure Code to call upon the defendants to clarify the pleadings, the plaintiffs application under Order 11 Rules 1 and 4, C.P.C. is not maintainable. Order passed rejecting the application under Order 11 Rule 4, C.P.C. not being in the nature of a case decided is also not revisable under Section 115 of C.P.C. Order 11, Rule 1, C.P.C. is meant for shortening a litigation calling the defendants to admit certain facts. In this case the application of the plaintiff being by way of clarification does not come within the scope of Order 11, Rule 1, C.P.C. and therefore the application had been rightly rejected.

Provided also that interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness,"

Obviously the purpose of this rule is to enable a party to require information from his opponent for the purpose of maintaining his own case or for destroying the case of the adversary. The main object of interrogatories is to save expenses and shorten the litigation by enabling a party to obtain from his opponent information as to the facts material regarding the question in dispute between them or to obtain admission of any facts which he has to prove on any issue which is raised between them. As a general rule, interrogatories are to be allowed whenever the answer to them will serve either to maintain thecase of the party administering them or to destroy the case of the adversary. The power to serve interrogatories as it appears is not meant to be confined within narrow technical limits. It should be used liberally whenever it can shorten litigation and serve the interest of justice. However, this can be exercised within certain limits. The power to order interrogatories to he served and answer should be used with considerable care and caution, so that it is not abused by any party. A party entitled to interrogate his opponent with a view to ascertain what case he has to meet and the facts relied on and to limit the generality of the pleadings and find out what is really is in issue See AIR 1934 Nagpur 181 Shamrao v. Motiram. At the same time interrogatories must be confined to facts which are relevant to the matters in question in the suit. Interrogatories which are really in nature of cross-examination will not be allowed see AIR 1972 SC 1302 Raj Narain v. Smt. Tndira Nehru Gandhi.

8. Keeping the above principles in view and analysing it, I am of the opinion that the interrogatories should be allowed to enable the plaintiff to know the nature of the defendants' case, so that he may know beforehand what case he has to meet at hearing. This will enable the parties to have a fair trial and will shorten the litigation.

9. Opposite parties have raised the contention that the revision is not maintainable as the order rejecting the application under Order 11, Rule 1, C.P.C. is not a case decided.

Whether the interrogatories should be allowed or not is a question within the jurisdiction of the Court. The error of procedure committed by the learned Sub-Judge lay in the fact that he did not attempt to formulate the correct legal position and to apply the Same to the facts of the case. The resultant conclusion is that the Court, while deciding a question within jurisdiction acted in the exercise of it with material irregularity (see AIR 1949 PC 156, N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar v. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras; AIR 1959 SC 492, Chaube Jagdish Prasad v. Ganga Prasad Chaturvedi and ILR (1964) Cuttack 958 (supra)). Therefore under Section 115, C.P.C. it is open to the High Court to make such order as it deems fit.