Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The respondent no.1/plaintiff contested the application. It was contended that by way of interrogatories, the Bank was seeking proof of its averments in the written statement; that the interrogatories could not be answered also for the reason of the documents being in possession and power of the Bank; it was admitted that while some of the invoices may have been settled in full but it was averred that other invoices remained partly paid or unpaid; that payments made by the Bank from time to time were not accompanied with any covering letter intimating the relative bill numbers; that it was for this reason, that particulars of the bills raised and of the payments received had been given in Annexure-2 to the plaint and the amounts outstanding shown; it was further averred that the Bank had in its power and possession the material from which the interrogatories could be answered. The trial court has vide the order impugned in this petition dismissed the application holding that the questions posed by way of interrogatories could be asked during the course of the cross examination.

7. In the present case, the suit is for recovery of balance amount stated to be a due on a large number of bills stated to have been raised by the respondent no./plaintiff on the Bank. From the reply of the respondent no.1/ plaintiff to the application for interrogatories, the respondent no.1/plaintiff has admitted that some of the bills which were claimed to be due may have been paid in full or in part. The respondent no.1/plaintiff attempted to explain away the same by contending that the payments made by the Bank could not be related to the bills owing to the Bank not specifying that the payments was with respect to which bill. The question between the parties is thus of accounts. The queries / questions with respect to such accounts are best answered by delivery of interrogatories. If such queries were to be made in cross examination, the witness / plaintiff may not be in a position to answer the same immediately, for non availability of requisite material. The same would result either in the cross examination being deferred leading to delays and costs or to evasive answers. On the contrary, interrogatories can be answered by the party at its leisure and after perusing all records available at its office/residence and also by making enquiries, if any, necessary from its other staff members in know of the matter. Answers to the interrogatories will also lead to reduction in the time taken by the court in recording cross examination and help in crystallizing the cross examination. The counsel for the Bank has in this regard correctly relied upon

11. As far as the large number of interrogatories is concerned, it has to be judged in the light of the nature of the suit. The suit is based on a statement of account, bills raised and the balance thereon. At this stage, it appears to have been said that as many as 84 bills were outstanding. The defence of the Bank to the suit is also bill wise. Seen in this context over, 100 interrogatories with reference to each and every bill, cannot be said to be excessive. It also cannot be said that any of the interrogatories are roving or fishing in nature. The plea of the respondent no.1/plaintiff of his not being able to answer the interrogatories because the records thereof are in possession of the Bank also as a general rule does not inspire confidence. It is the respondent no.1/plaintiff who has approached the court stating monies to be due from the Bank. The respondent no.1/plaintiff must have made out a case with the knowledge that he will be required to prove the same. The suit is not for accounts. He now faced with the interrogatories cannot hide behind the plea of the material for answering the same being available with the Bank. Even if it is the case that the Bank need not serve the interrogatories because it can find the answer thereto in its own records, interrogatories would still lie. As laid down in the judgment cited above, the Bank is entitled to know the case of the respondent no.1 / plaintiff qua each and every bill so as to meet the same at the time of trial.

13. This petition therefore succeeds. The order dated 28th March, 2009 of the trial court dismissing the application for interrogatories is set aside. The application for serving interrogatories is allowed. The interrogatories no.21 and 22 which were stated to be scandalous are also ordered to be answered since the schedule rates of fee for a designated senior advocate and advocate on record are different and the said position being relevant for adjudication of the matter in controversy. The respondent no.1/plaintiff to answer the interrogatories in accordance with law. However, in the facts of the case, no order as to costs.