Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Counsel for the defendant contended that interrogatories should not be allowed because the plaintiff has to prove his case and unless he has discharged the onus the defendant is not liable to answer any question. It was also contended that the plaintiff should possess evidence in support of his case and he could not obtain proof of his case by extracting interrogatories. No other objection was taken to the interrogatories.

4. One of the issues in this suit is whether there was a term of business as alleged by the plaintiff and whether payments were made by the plaintiff to the defendants. In the case of Sutherland (Duke) v. British Dominions Land Settlement Corporation, 1928-1 Ch. 746, Mr. Justice Tomlin said that the administering of interrogatories is a step which is more often desirable than undesirable and is to be encouraged rather than to be discouraged, because they not infrequently bring an action to an end at an earlier stage than otherwise would be the case, to the advantage of all parties concerned. The observations of Cotton L. J. in Attorney General v. Gaskill (1882) 20 Ch. D 519 relied on by Mr. Sen, are as follows:

"The right to discovery remains the same, that is to say, a party has a right to interrogate with a view to obtaining an admission from his opponent of everything which is material and relevant to the issue raised on the pleadings. It was said in argument that it is not discovery where the plaintiff himself already knows the fact but that is a mere play on the word 'discovery'. Discovery is not limited to giving the plaintiff a knowledge of that which he does not know, but includes the getting an admission of anything which he has to prove on any issue which is raised between him and the defendant. To say that the pleadings have raised issues and that therefore the interrogatories should not be allowed is an entire fallacy. The object of the pleadings is to ascertain what the issues are, the object of interrogatories is not to learn what the issues are, but to see whether the party who interrogates cannot obtain an admission from his opponent which will make the burden of proof easier than it otherwise would have been."

5. In accordance with the general rules as to discovery interrogatories may not extend to the evidence where-with the opposite party intends to support his case at the trial, or to the contents of his opponent's brief or to the names of his witnesses or to the facts which merely support the case of the party interrogated. Interrogatories must be confined to matters which are in issue or sufficiently material at the particular stage of the action at which they are sought to be delivered, or to the relief claimed including the amount of the damages, and as a general rule, perhaps to matters which are relevant to the facts directly in issue, but under some circumstances they may extend to the facts the existence or non-existence of which is relevant to the existence or non-existence of the facts directly in issue. In the case of Marriot v. Chamberlain, (1886) 17 QBD 154, in an action for libel where the defendant pleaded that the statement made was true, the Court allowed interrogatories to be administered to the plaintiff as to the person in whose hands he had seen a certain letter which the plaintiff alleged had been signed by the defendant, but which the defendant alleged to have been fabricated by the plaintiff, and the names and addresses of persons to whom the letter had been sent. Lord Esher M. R. held that the interrogatories are permissible as relating to matters which, though not directly in issue, are material to the issue and that the right to interrogate is not confined to the facts directly in issue, but extends to any facts the existence or non-existence of which is relevant to the existence or non-existence of the facts directly in issue. It has also been held that enquiries as to facts which tend to show that the defence set up is unfounded ought not to be excluded because the matters enquired after are not directly relevant to the issue in the case, but only tend to show that the defence set up is not a real one. (See Re : Morgan; Owen v. Morgan (1888) 39 Ch D 316).

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 :