Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. There are two affidavits affirmed On behalf of the defendant; one is affirmed by Sugan Chand Sarowgee on 24-7-1959 and the other is an affidavit of Rai Bahadur Motilal Chamaria affirmed on 22-9-1959. In the affidavit of Sugan Chand Sarowgee it is alleged that the interrogatories asked for are matters of evidence to be gone into at the hearing or when accounts are to be taken and further that the answers to the interrogatories are best known to the plaintiff. In paragraph 8 of that affidavit it is denied that payments were made by the plaintiff to parties on behalf of the defendant as alleged or at all. In the affidavit affirmed by Rai Bahadur Motilal Chamaria it is stated that the statements made in paragraph, 8 of the affidavit affirmed by Sugan Chand Sarowgee are correct and it is denied that payments were made by the plaintiff to parties on behalf of the defendant.

8. It is not a good objection to allowing interrogatories, that the party interrogating has other means of proving the facts in question since one legitimate purpose of interrogatories is to obtain admission.

9. In the case of Saunders v. Jones, (1877) 7 Ch. D 435, the defendant employed the plaintiff as manager of his business under a written agreement at a salary and a commission on the gross! amount of sales. Disputes arose; the defendant dismissed the plaintiff. The plaintiff commenced an action for wrongful dismissal. The plaintiff exhibited 4 interrogatories, of which the substance was to ask the defendant to specify the acts of misconduct and a fifth interrogatory asking for the total amount of the gross proceeds of sales during the period for which the plaintiff claimed remuneration. The defendant refused to answer the first four interrogatories, on the ground that they related to the case of the defendant and not of the plaintiff, and the fifth interrogatory, on the ground that the right to action was disputed and the defendant was not bound to give such amount at that stage of the action. In the present case it was also contended that the defendant having denied that monies were paid the plaintiff was not entitled to interrogatories. James, L. J. at p. 449 of the report said :

"If the plaintiff succeeds in his contention that he is entitled to a fixed commission upon the amount, his having that amount admitted would enable him at the trial, without any further enquiry or litigation, to obtain a decree for the payment of that which is due to him."

10. In my opinion, the applicant is entitled to the interrogatories asked for.

11. I, therefore, make an order in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the summons save and except that time is given till the 21st December, 1959 to answer the interrogatories. The interrogatories should be answered by the defendant himself and by no other person.