Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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. It would now be pertinent to examine the scope of Order 11, Civil Procedure Code, The main object of interrogatories is to save expenses by enabling a party to obtain an admission from his opponent which makes the burden of proof easier. It would certainly not to be extended to prying into the evidence wherewith the opposite-party intends to support his case.............."

The Calcutta High Court decision in Baijnath Kedia's case (supra) was followed by this Court in the case of Ganga Devi v. Krushna Prasad Sharma : AIR 1967 Orissa 19 wherein it was observed (at page 23):