Delhi HC: Invoking perjury jurisdiction at the interlocutory stage, with trial already underway and issues framed, would risk interfering with and prejudicing the main civil proceedings

 In my opinion, an application under section 340 of the cr.pc ought to be normally considered at the time of final decision of the case only and not at the interim stage as the defendants/applicant have pressed in the present case. It is the settled legal position that the said provision cannot be resorted to, to satisfy a private grudge of the litigant. In fact the very genesis of this provision is to prevent complaints being filed of offences having being committed in relation to the court proceedings; it was felt that if such complaints are permitted to be filed, the same may be used to force the other party into giving up its claim/defence or to dissuade witnesses from appearing before the courts under threat of criminal prosecution. It was held as far back as in Rewashankar Moolchand v. Emperor MANU/NA/0017/1939 : AIR 1940 Nagpur 72 that proceedings under Section 340Cr.PC should not be resorted to when the criminal case is calculated to hamper fair trial of issue in the civil court before which the matter would probably go on for longer. This court also in Jindal Polyster Ltd. v. Rahul Jaura MANU/DE/2772/2005 : 124 (2005) DLT 613 and in Kuldeep Kapoor v. Susanta Sengupta MANU/DE/2870/2005 : 126 (2006) DLT 149 has held that applications under section 340 of the Cr.pc should be dealt with at the final stage only and not at the interim stage. I also find a consistency of view in this regard in the other High Courts. The law is that a prosecution for perjury should not be ordered by the court before the close of the proceedings in the case in which false evidence is given. It is highly wrong for a court to take action under the said provision against a witness or a party for giving false evidence when trial is underway. {Para 18}

21. Formation of prima facie opinion that a person charged has intentionally given false evidence is a condition precedent for directing lodging of a complaint. The existence of mens rea or criminal intention behind act complained of will have to be looked into and considered before any action under section 340 of the cr.pc is recommended. Before setting the criminal law into motion, the court should exercise great care and caution and it must be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge in respect of which prosecution is directed. No prosecution ought to be ordered unless reasonable probability of conviction is found. Considering the nature of the documents and evidence in relation whereto offences are alleged to have been committed.

"6. The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"); but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. Even after the above position has emerged also, still the court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and offences against public justice and more specifically referred to in Section 340(1)CrPC, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution. 

17. The law governing the initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the BNSS, for offences under Sections 227, 229, 236, 237, and 246 of the BNS, provides that for a statement to constitute 'false evidence' under Section 227 BNS, the falsity must be clear, deliberate, and established through unimpeachable evidence. Mere inconsistencies in versions or bare denials do not meet this threshold. The Written Statement reflects Defendant No. 2's explanation that he had purchased the alleged pirated version of ISP under a bona fide belief of its genuineness, a contention the veracity of which can only be determined upon leading of evidence.

23. Before filing of the complaint under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the BNSS, the Court along with a clear and deliberate falsehood supported by an unimpeachable evidence has to record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (COMM) 914/2023

Decided On: 24.11.2025

Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Ors. Vs. Karma Mindtech and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Tejas Karia, J.

Citation: 2025 DHC 10345, MANU/DE/9185/2025.

Print Page

Whether the court can call say of another side before granting leave to deliver interrogatories?

 The afore-extracted paragraph, too, does not preclude a court from issuing notice on an application seeking leave to serve interrogatories. {Para 16}

17. No exception, therefore, can be taken to the impugned order of the learned ADJ, issuing notice, to the respondent, on the application preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, seeking leave to deliver interrogatories. The position, that an act which is not proscribed in law is permitted, is axiomatic. Rajendra Prasad Gupta v. Prakash Chandra Mishra (2011) 2 SCC 705. There is no proscription, in law, either statutory or precedential, inhibiting a court from issuing on an application filed under Order XI Rule 1, seeking leave to serve interrogatories on the opposite party, before deciding whether to grant, or refuse to grant, leave.

18. No exception can, therefore, be taken to the decision of the learned ADJ to issue notice on the application of the petitioner under Order XI Rule 1.

19. This petition, therefore is fundamentally misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CM(M) 265/2022 & CM No. 14383/2022, CM No.14384/2022

MAMTA  Vs  RISHIPAL 

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

Dated:  28.03.2022

Print Page

When court should not strike off defence of defendant if he fails to answer to interrogatories?

The legality of the said order passed by the learned Trial Judge is under
challenge in this First Miscellaneous appeal.
In this regard we are required to consider the pleadings made out by the
plaintiff in paragraph 12 of the plaint in this context of the defendant’s pleading
in paragraph 6 of the written statement. We find therefrom that the plaintiff
claimed that all the properties at village Boalia were sold by all the co-owners to
third parties. such pleadings of the plaintiff indicate that the parties had joint
properties at Boalia but none of such properties is now available for partition as
all the co-sharers sold those parties to third parties. Since such stand was taken
by the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot be absolved of his responsibility to prove
such stand taken by him in the plaint, simply because of the fact that the
defendant are unable to disclose the particulars of the left out joint properties at
Boalia Mouza instantly in their answer to the plaintiff’s interrogatory. That apart
we cannot lose sight of the defendants’ pleading in paragraph 16 of the written
statement wherein they stated that the plaintiff who is the uncle of the
defendants being the custodian of the title deeds relating to the joint properties
of the parties, himself is liable to supply all the particulars relating to those
properties at Boalia.Since the defendants are unable to supply the particulars of the left out
joint properties at Boalia instantly, they prayed for leave to disclose the
particulars of these properties at the time of trial of the suit.
The Court has not yet taken any decision on such prayer of the defendant.
In these set of facts we feel that the defence of the defendant should not
have been struck out inasmuch as, if the defence of the defendant is struck out
at this stage, a premium will be given to the plaintiff so far as the issue regarding
maintainability of the suit for not joining all the joint properties at Boalia in the
hotchpot of the partition suit, is concerned, particularly when he in substance
admitted in the plaint that they had joint properties at Boalia Mouza but these
are now not available for partition due to sale thereof by all the co-sharers to
the third parties. In view of such pleadings in the plaint, the plaintiff in our view
is the best person to disclose the joint properties which they had, and when
those properties were sold by all the co-sharers.
In our view, this is a matter of proof by the parties during the trial of the
suit. As such we hold that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in striking
out the defence of the defendants at this stag. We thus set aside the impugned
order and permit the parties to lead evidence on all issues at the time of hearing
of the suit.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
 Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
AND
 Justice Ishan Chandra Das
 F.M.A.T. 808 of 2016
 Tamal Das 
 V
 Dilip Kumar Das @ Dipak Das

Judgement on : 5th September, 2016.
Citation:AIR 2017(NOC) 188 Cal

Print Page

Procedure to be followed by court in case of discovery by interrogatories

In   the   present   case   the   petitioner   in   response   to   the

interrogatories as made submitted his affidavit.  No exception was taken by

the respondent on the ground that said information was either insufficient or

that there was any omission to answer.  The trial Court on its own proceeded

to record a finding that the information furnished was insufficient and by

observing that it would draw adverse inference, directed the petitioner to

furnish further information.  The course as followed by the trial Court is not

in accordance with the scheme of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The order dated 06.07.2015 has been passed by exercising jurisdiction with

material irregularity resulting in miscarriage of justice.  The same is therefore

liable to be set aside.  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH

NAGPUR.

WRIT    PETITION   NO.    5173    OF     2015

Vikas @ Vicky Banwarilal Saraf Vs Megha Vikas @ Vicky Saraf

CORAM:   A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.

 Dated    :   DECEMBER  14, 2015.

Citation; 2016(3) MHLJ58

Print Page

When court should not refuse discovery by interrogatories?

Discovery   by   interrogatories.­­   In 
any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of 
the   Court   may   deliver   interrogatories   in 
writing   for   the   examination   of   the   opposite 
parties   or   any   one   or   more   of   such   parties, 
and such interrogatories when delivered shall 
have a note at the foot thereof stating which 
of such interrogatories each of such persons is 
required to answer:
Provided that no party shall deliver 
more   than   one   set   of   interrogatories   to   the 
same party without an order for that purpose:
Provided   also   that   interrogatories 
which do not relate to any matters in question 
in   the   suit   shall   be   deemed   irrelevant, 
notwithstanding   that   they   might   be 
admissible on the oral cross­examination of a 
witness.”
It   is   well   settled   that   only   those   questions   that 
are   relevant   as   interrogatories   are   those   which   relate   to 
“any   matters   in   question”.     The   interrogatories   served   on 
the other side must have reasonably close connection with 
“matters   in   question”  Rajnarayan   Vs.   Indira   Nehru  
Gandhi (1972) 3 SCC 850.
A   party   has   a   right   to   submit   interrogatories 
relating   to   the   matter   in   issue.     The   expression   “matter” 

means a question or issue in dispute in the action and not 
the  things   about  which   such   dispute arises.  The  object   of 
aforesaid   provisions   is   to   save   expenses   by   obtaining 
information as to material facts and to obtain admission of 
any fact which the party has to prove on any issue – Union  
of India Vs. Ibrahimuddin (2012) 8 SCC 148.
“The right of a party to deliver interrogatories to  
his opponent and get answers from him is a valuable one in  

conducting his cause and he should not lightly be deprived of  
it.   It   must   be   remembered   that   discovery   of   facts   and  
documents often tends to shorten litigation and save expenses,  
Ramlalsao   v.   Tansingh   Lalsingh,  A.I.R.   1952,   Nagpur  
135.

Interrogatories cannot be refused on the ground 
that  the applicant   has   other  means  of proving  the fact   in 
question – AIR 1960 Cal 536, Jamayat Rai Vs. Motilal. 
The provisions  of Order  11  Rule 1  of the  Code 
confer necessary discretion with the Court to grant leave for 
delivery   of   interrogatories.     Thus,   it   is   clear   that   while 
interrogatories   should   relate   to   a   question   or   issue   in 
dispute,   the   object   of   said   provision   is   not   to   enable   the 
applicant to know as to how his opponent is going to prove 
his case. It is, therefore, obvious that while considering an 
application   seeking   leave   of   the   Court   to   deliver 

interrogatories under provisions of Order 11 Rule 1 of the 
Code, aforesaid aspects will have to be taken into account 
by the Court.                                        
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.5675 OF 2013
Shri   Shrivallabh Sikchi V Ibrahimkhan   S/o   Ahmadkhan, 

CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

DATED: 10­10­2014.
Citation; 2015(2) MHLJ 175

Print Page

Amazing Tips for Drafting of Interrogatories

Interrogatories are a discovery device used by a party, usually a defendant, to enable the individual to learn the facts that are the basis for, or support, a Pleading with which he or she has been served by the opposing party. They are used primarily to determine what issues are present in a case and how to frame a responsive pleading or a deposition. Only parties to an action must respond to interrogatories, unlike depositions that question both parties and witnesses.

Interrogatories are used to obtain relevant information that a party has regarding a case, but they cannot be used to elicit privileged communications.

Print Page

Interrogatories must not be of a fishing nature i.e. they must refer to some distinct and existing state of circumstances

Under Order Xi Rule 1 any party to a suit may with the leave of the Court deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties for eliciting any relevant information, admissions or evidence of  material facts to be adduced at the trial and to save expenses of lengthy evidence. The main object of delivering interrogatories by a party is to discover facts in order to facilitate the proof of his own case. However, the power to allow interrogatories to be administered by one parly to another is always subject to the discretion of the court. The discretion extends to allowing or refusing particular interrogatories. See para 103 of Volume 13, Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, wherein it is further stated that the Court of Appeal will not lightly interfere with the judge's exercise of his discretion, unless he acts on a wrong principle. That besides, it is well settled that interrogatories must be confined to the 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. [Para 105, Halsbury's Laws of England (supra)]. The proviso to Order Xi Rule 1 in terms states that the interrogatories which do not relate to any matter in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness. In other words, the interrogatories sought to be served must have reasonably close connection with the matters in question. They must not be unreasonable, vexatious, prolix, oppressive or scandalous. Further, they must not be of a fishing nature i.e. they must refer to some distinct and existing state of circumstances and must not be put merely in the hope of discovering something which may help a party interrogating to make out some case. [See Rofe v. Kevorkion, 1936(2) All Er 1334].

Delhi High Court

The Rajasthan Golden Transport ... vs Avon Footwear Industries Pvt. ... on 8 November, 1985

Equivalent citations: AIR 1986 Delhi 286, 29 (1986) DLT 442

J.D. Jain, J.

Print Page

Should the court direct the husband to answer Interrogatories regarding his income even though he has not filed his written statement?

 It is also a settled legal position that as a general rule, interrogatories are to be allowed, whenever the answer to them will serve either to maintain the case of the party administering them or to destroy the case of the adversary. The power to serve interrogatories is not meant to be confined within narrow technical limits. It should be used liberally, whenever it can shorten litigation and serve the interest of justice.

14. In the present case at hand, since the defendant has not filed any Written Statement, the question of destroying defendant's case does not arise. However, the plaintiff has to prove her case and has to obtain admissions from the defendant to facilitate the proof of her own case.

I am in agreement with the submissions made by Mr. Grover, appearing for the plaintiff. The inspection of documents sought for by the plaintiff and the interrogatories delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant are absolutely relevant for deciding the question of quantum of maintenance prayed for by the plaintiff for herself and for her minor child. This in fact is the precise issue in the suit, and therefore, the plaintiff's Chamber Summons has to be allowed. 

Bombay High Court

Sonia Senroy Of Mumbai vs Amit Senroy Of Mumbai on 22 April, 1998

Equivalent citations: AIR 1998 Bom 302, 1998 (3) BomCR 829, I (1999) DMC 233

Coram: DR. Pratibha Upasani, J.

Print Page