Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(i) A.K. Aggarwal Vs. Shunti Devi 1996 Rajdhani Law Reporter 60 laying down that the provision of interrogatories has to be liberally used and parties ought to be encouraged to use them in the course of the trial; that one of the core objects of interrogatories is to save evidence, diminish the burden of proof and to save expenses; a party has a right to interrogate with a view to obtain an admission from the adversary. It was expressly held that it was no reason for declining to answer the interrogatory that the same information may be got by cross examination at trial. (ii) Sharda Dhir Vs. Ashok Kumar Makhija 99 (2002) DLT 350 laying down that the object of interrogatories is that the party knows the nature of his opponent's case before hand in order to meet it at the hearing; that in a given case, the pleadings may not sufficiently disclose the nature of the parties case and in order to make good the deficiencies, this rule has been enacted; that the court should not be hyper-technical at the stage of serving the interrogatories. The only defence to service of interrogatories can be when the same do not relate to the matter in question or are scandalous (iii) Bhakta Charan Mallik Vs. Nataorar Mallik AIR 1991 Orissa 319 to the same effect.