Whether the person giving false answers to interrogatories is liable for perjury?

Under Order 11, Rule 22 CPC, the answer given in response to an interrogatory can be used in evidence, and therefore, its correctness and veracity will be established only at trial. Undoubtedly, it is incumbent upon a person answering the interrogatories to be truthful in the answers, and if the person is eventually found to have given false answers, they can be visited with consequences like perjury, in accordance with law, since the answer given in response to interrogatory can be used in evidence under Rule 22. All such consequences are within the domain of the Trial Court which shall eventually deal with the evidence produced by the parties before it. {Para 26}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

FAO 37/2020 and C.M. Appl. No. 3126/2020

Decided On: 29.08.2022

Rattan Mehta and Ors. Vs. Gayatri Shah and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/3126/2022

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

Procedure to be followed by court when application for delivery of interrogatories is filed

 When examined in the light of parameters laid down in the aforesaid judgments, clearly, the Trial Court has misdirected itself in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC. While deciding the said application under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, the Trial Court had to only consider whether answer to the said interrogatories would have some bearing on the issues involved in the case and whether the same could be necessary for fair adjudication of the dispute. The very object of the interrogatories is to know the case of the opposite party and to, therefore, shorten the trial and limit the scope of the cross-examination. The Courts should be liberal and should not be hyper-technical in allowing the use of interrogatories in a suit. Interrogatories also enable a party to obtain an admission from the opponent, which reduces the scope of trial and the cost of litigation for the parties. Once the Court comes to the conclusion that the interrogatories are relevant for proper adjudication of the case, the interrogatories are served upon the other party and the said other party has to answer the interrogatories on affidavit or objections can be raised on the ground that the said interrogatories are scandalous in nature or are not relevant or not bona fide for the purposes of the suit or on the ground of privilege. The objections on the grounds above have to be taken on affidavit. It is at that stage that the Court has to consider which of the questions in the interrogatories the party should be compelled to answer. {Para 24}

25. In the present case, the approach followed by the Trial Court in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner was completely flawed. No exercise has been undertaken to determine whether the interrogatories sought to be delivered on the respondents are relevant or necessary for fair and proper adjudication of the case. This Court is of the view that the interrogatories sought to be served by the petitioner on respondents no. 1 and 2 were germane for adjudication of the suit. Seeing the nature of relief sought in the suit viz. rendition of account with regard to the various fixed deposits made by late Mrs. Veena Paintal in the name of the petitioner, the information/documents sought by the petitioner with regard to such deposits were relevant for the issues to be decided in the suit. The information sought by way of interrogatories with regard to procedure to be followed by the bank for change in the nature of account or adding a nominee to the FDR is also very relevant in the light of the allegations in the plaint that the said fixed deposit was illegally tampered with and the name of respondent no. 1 was wrongly added.

26. The only basis provided by the Trial Court for not allowing the application of the petitioner was that the interrogatories could be put in cross-examination. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the cross-examination may not be necessary in light of the answers given to the interrogatories. It is not the case of the respondents that any of the interrogatories are scandalous in nature or are irrelevant. When the aforesaid tests of ‘relevancy’ and ‘expediency’ are applied to the facts of the case, there is no doubt in the mind of the Court that interrogatories as sought to be raised in the present case should have been allowed and would have helped in reducing the time taken in trial.

 In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Amit Bansal, J.)

CM(M) No. 925/2019

Tara Batra  Vs Punam A. Kumar 

Decided on September 10, 2021,

Citation: 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4331

Print Page

Whether court can permit party to administer interrogatories for obtaining discoveries of facts which constitutes evidence of its adversary's case?

  Order XI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes that in any suit the parties by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories provided that the 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 cross-examination of the witness. This rule is enacted to enable the parties to know the nature of the opponent's case, but the rule does not entitle the party to ascertain the facts which constitute exclusively the evidence of the other side, the reason being that it would enable unscrupulous parties to tamper with the witnesses of the other side and to manufacture evidence in contradiction and so shape his case as to defeat justice. In cases where the plaint or written statement does not necessarily disclose the nature of the case, then interrogatories are administered to make good the deficiency. Interrogatories can also to be administered to obtain administered from other parties to facilitate the proof of the claim. Order XI, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the interrogatories may be objected on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit or that the matters inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage. It is well settled that the parties are not entitled to administer interrogatories for obtaining discoveries of facts which constitutes evidence of its adversary's case or title.{Para 7}

Bombay High Court

M. L. PENDSE AND M. P. KENIA, JJ.

Nishi Prem vs. Javed Akhtar and others

Appeal No. 957 of 1987

19th September, 1987.

Citation: 1987 ALLMR ONLINE 596,AIR 1988Bom 222

Print Page

Whether suit is liable to be dismissed if there is non compliance of order of court?

Order XI, rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads: "21. Where any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery of inspection of documents, he shall, if a plaintiff, be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution, and, if a defendant, to have his defence; if any, struck out, and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended. and the party interrogating or seeking discovery or inspection may apply to the Court for an order to that effect, and an order may be made accordingly."

Section 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, corresponding to order XI, rule 21 of the C.P.C. 1908, was based upon order XXXI, rule 20, now replaced by order XXIV, rule 16 framed under the Judi-

cature Act. The practice of the English Courts is, and it has always A been, to make the order a conditional one, and to grant a little further time for compliance. In practice this provision is virtually obsolete(l).

Even assuming that in certain circumstances the provisions of order Xl, rule 21 must be strictly enforced, it does not follow that a Suit can be lightly thrown out or a defence struck out, without adequate reasons. The test laid down is whether the default is wilful. In the case of a plaintiff, it entails in the dismissal of the suit and, therefore, an order for dismissal ought not be made under order XT, rule 21, unless the court is satisfied that the plaintiff was willfully withholding information by refusing to answer interrogatories or by withholding the documents which he sought to discover. In such an event, the plaintiff must take the consequence of having his claim dismissed due to his default, i.e. by suppression of information which he was bound to give: 

Supreme Court of India

Babbar Sewing Machine Co vs Trilok Nath Mahajan on 7 August, 1978

Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 1436, 1979 SCR (1) 57

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.N. Sen, D.A. Desai and Jaswant Singh, JJ.

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

What is importance of delivery of interrogatories?

 After the written statement was filed the plaintiff sought leave to deliver interrogatories for the examination of both the defendants. Answers to these interrogatories were necessary to elicit their admissions to support the plaintiff's case and destroy the case of the defendants. The learned Judge erroneously refused leave on the ground that the interrogatories were not material at that stage of the suit, meaning probably, before the oral evidence was recorded. The application for discovery of documents was also disposed of on the same ground. We are of the view that these orders are erroneous. 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. The learned Judge had not framed all the issues arising from the pleadings of the parties. If he had framed these issues and permitted the parties to make full use of Orders 11 and 12, Civil Procedure Code, the trial would have been shortened and he would have found ample malarial to decide the case correctly. Probably, the preliminary decree could have been passed even without going into oral evidence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR

First Appeal No. 127 of 1944

Decided On: 05.07.1951

Ramlalsao Vs.  Tansingh Lalsingh

Coram:

R. Kaushalendra Rao and Deo, JJ.

Citation:1952 NLJ 278 Nagpur

Print Page

When court should allow delivery of interrogatories to other party?

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 MANU/SC/0366/1972 : (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 MANU/SC/0561/2012 : (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, MANU/NA/0103/1951 : 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 MANU/WB/0141/1960 : 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 BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 5675 of 2013

Decided On: 10.10.2014

 Shrivallabh
Vs.
Ibrahimkhan

Coram: A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation: 2015 (2) MHLJ 175

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 can allow to deliver second set of interrogatories to same party?

 In first proviso to rule 1 of Order 11 of the C.P.C., a restriction is imposed on presenting the interrogatories. For the purpose of delivering interrogatories, particular procedure is laid down in rule 1, viz. the interrogatories should be in writing and no interrogatories can be delivered without leave of the Court. As per the first proviso, a party shall not deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same party without an order of the Court for that purpose. Apparently, therefore, while delivering the interrogatories, leave of the Court is required. If certain points crop up subsequently and are found relevant, then permission can be granted to give the interrogatories second time. Proviso places restriction on delivering more than one set of interrogatories to the same party. However, legislation did not stop there, but further clause "without an order for that purpose" is added. These words undoubtedly confer power upon the Court to allow a second set of interrogatories to the same party at a time in an appropriate case. If the Legislature intended to restrict the delivery of interrogatories to one set to the same party, then it would not have mentioned the entailing clause in the proviso, i.e. "without an order for that purpose".

So, restriction is to be read to mean that at a time, not more than one set of interrogatories to the same party be given, but if justifiable reasons are given, then the other set also can be delivered, subject to permission of the Court.

The learned trial Judge, interpreting the said proviso erroneously, held that under any circumstances, no set of interrogatories more than one to the same party can be given. It is not intended in the Statute. The learned Trial Judge lost sight that such delivery of interrogatories for second time is allowed with the leave of the Court, if found relevant, just, appropriate and useful. Interrogatories facilitate evidence, so also are the means for the Court to understand the matter in correct perspective and so permission is to be given liberally, but care is to be taken that it is not misused. Hence, by assuring fair-play, permission can be granted to deliver interrogatories second time, and on that point, petition deserves to be allowed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 10113 of 2012

Decided On: 30.09.2013

Appellants: M/s. Kishorilal Babulal
Vs.
Respondent: Ramlal and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Mridula Bhatkar, J.

Citation: 2014(1)ABR830, AIR2014Bom19, 2013(6)ALLMR892, 2014(1)MhLj782

Print Page

Whether suggestion made in cross examination can be treated as admission?

The interrogatories would suggest that the marriage had taken place in that year 1955. It may be before May or after May, 1955, nothing is clinching. Adverting to the suggestion put in the course of cross-examination to the respondent by the Counsel for the petitioner, it is so obvious that he had not taken instructions from the petitioner. The petitioner in her evidence has clearly stated that she did not remember as to when the marriage took place. It is for that reason that the date of marriage was not obviously mentioned in the petition nor in the reply statement filed by the Counsel for the petitioner. All of a sudden, however, in the course of cross-examination of the respondent, the counsel has put a random suggestion whether the marriage had not taken place in the year N57. It is obvious from reading the evidence of the petitioner and the interrogatories that this suggestion eminates from the lawyer and was not rooted in the knowledge of the petitioner. Therefore, no evidentiary value can be attached. Besides a mere suggestion made and denied is not evidence at all.

Karnataka High Court

Parameshwari Bai vs Muthojirao Scindia on 29 July, 1980

Equivalent citations: AIR 1981 Kant 40, ILR 1981 KAR 78

Bench: G Sabhahit, D V Rao

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

Bombay HC: Factors to be considered by court while directing interrogatories to be served upon other side

  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  Dongardasji Sikchi,   Vs­  Ibrahimkhan   S/o   Ahmadkhan,  
  
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

DATED: 10­-10-­2014.
Citation;AIR 2015(NOC)208 Bom

Print Page

Whether questions that may be relevant during cross-examination are relevant as interrogatories?

Interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit, have to be deemed to be in question in the suit, have to be deemed to be irrelevant notwithstanding that they might be admissible during the oral cross-examination of a witness under the Evidence Act, Reference in this regards can be made from Supreme Court decision in Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi. MANU/SC/0366/1972 : AIR 1972 SC. 1302, where it was observed:-

27 Questions that may be relevant during cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. The only questions that are relevant as interrogatories are those relating to "any matters in question". The interrogatories served must have reasonably close connection with "matters in question". Viewed thus, interrogatories 1 to 18 as well as 31 must be held irrelevant,

Party not entitled, to administer interrogatories for obtaining discovery of facts which constituted exclusively evidence of adversary's case or title.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

I.A. No. 11900 of 1999 in Suit No. 1410 of 1995

Decided On: 15.05.2000

Appellants: M/s. AFL Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Vs.
Respondent: Smt. Veena Trivedi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:S.K. Agarwal, J.

 Citation: AIR2000Delhi354

Print Page

Whether it is permissible to Strike of defence for non-compliance of order of discovery?

Order XI, rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads: "21. Where any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery of inspection of documents, he shall, if a plaintiff, be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution, and, if a defendant, to have his defence; if any, struck out, and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended. and the party interrogating or seeking discovery or inspection may apply to the Court for an order to that effect, and an order may be made accordingly."

It is well settled that the stringent provisions of order XI, rule 21 should be applied only in extreme cases, where there is contumacy on the part of the defendant or a wilful attempt to disregard the order of the court is established.

An order striking out the defence under order XI, rule 21 of the Code should, therefore, not be made unless there has been obstinacy or contumacy on the part of the defendant or wilful attempt to disregard the order of the court. The rule must be worked with caution, and may be made use of as a last resort:

 The principle governing the court's exercise of its discretion under Order XI, Rule 21, as already stated, is that it is only when the default is wilful and as a last resort that the court should dismiss the suit or strike out the defence, when the party is guilty of such contumacious conduct or there is a wilful attempt to disregard the order of the court that the trial of the suit is arrested. Applying this test, it is quite clear that there was no wilful default on the part of the defendant of the court's order under Order XI, Rule 18(2) for the production of documents for inspection, and consequently, the order passed by the trial court on 23 May, 1967, striking out the defence of the defendant must be vacated, and the trial must proceed afresh from the stage where the defendant was not permitted to participate.

Supreme Court of India

Babbar Sewing Machine Co vs Trilok Nath Mahajan on 7 August, 1978

Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 1436, 1979 SCR (1) 57

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.N. Sen, D.A. Desai and Jaswant Singh, JJ.

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

Right of a party to deliver interrogatories to his opponent and get answers from him should not be curtailed

 In his reply, Shri Watel, learned counsel for the Director-General, cited the observations of the learned judges in the case of Ramlal Sao v. Tan Singh Lal Singh, AIR 1952 Nag 135, in which it was held that " 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." He also pointed out that the proceedings before the Commission are not in the nature of advisory proceedings but are covered by the principle of public interest. The relevance of the interrogatories has, therefore, to be judged from that angle. Regulation 74 empowers the Commission to direct suo motu an investigation of the cost in respect of any class of goods, if considered necessary. The respondents cannot refuse to furnish information on cost of production, if directed to do so by the Commission. Adverting to the relevant provisions in the Evidence Act, he pointed out that information on cost of production cannot be regarded as privileged or confidential and withheld on that account. In order to prove the charge of concert it becomes extremely important to show that the prices quoted by the various companies have no relationship to the actual cost of production. The cost data are, therefore, of immediate and direct relevance to the issue under consideration.

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission

Association Of State Road ... vs Premier Tyres Ltd. And Ors. on 9 July, 1986

Equivalent citations: 1988 64 CompCas 868 NULL

Bench: S Manchanda, M Satyapal

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