Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: answer interrogatories in A.M.Gopalan vs Umasankar on 7 March, 2014Matching Fragments
The plaintiff in the suit before the court below has sought for the leave of the court for delivering interrogatories to the 2nd defendant, who is the petitioner herein. Ext.P3 is the said IA filed under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The said IA was objected to by the petitioner and he has filed Ext.P4 objection. The court below, through Ext.P5 order, has allowed the IA thereby directing the petitioner to answer the interrogatories 1 to 5, within 15 days. The said order is under challenge.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. The main argument forwarded by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that matters contained in item Nos.4 and 5 of the interrogatories are quite unnecessary, as the answers sought for from the said interrogatories have been covered by the written statement filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that some of the matters noted in interrogatories 4 and 5 have been pleaded in the written statement.
3. There is no such rule which restricts interrogatories to matters which are not covered by the pleadings alone. The party to whom an interrogatory is sought to be served can oppose it on any of the grounds enumerated under Order XI Rule 6 of CPC. It can be objected in cases where such questions are scandalous or irrelevant, or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit, or on the ground of privilege. The use of the answers to interrogatories at the trial is as mentioned in Order XI Rule 22 of CPC. Here, no privilege has been pleaded. There is no case that these questions are scandalous. The only argument is that those questions are irrelevant.