( 1 ) THE C. R. P. is filed against the orders of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, tirupathi in I. A. No. 287 of 1999 in O. S. No. 110 of 1994.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the defendant The respondent/plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10-10-1991 in respect of suit schedule property. It is the case of the petitioner that such agreement was not executed and denies the same. However, trial has commenced in the suit. P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and when P. W. 3 was being examined, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XI Rule 1 C. P. C. seeking leave of the Court to issue interrogatories to the defendant. The said application was allowed by the lower Court by an order dated 2-7-1999 in I. A. No. 287 of 1999. Aggrieved by the said order the present revision petition has been filed by the defendant.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, mr. P. V. Vidyasagar submits that the very exercise of the power by the lower Court is wholly misconceived. The lower Court did not consider the relevant provisions under order XI Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. and thus, the lower Court committed a grave error in allowing the application. He also submits that interrogatories are not at all connected with the matter under adjudication and it is only to protract the proceedings such an application has been filed. The intention of order XI is to reduce the adjudication time in the interest the parties but, on the other hand, this application is filed to prolong the litigation between the parties.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent, Mr. O. Manohar Reddy submits that the documents, which are being sought to be pressed in evidence, are to be introduced through the concerned witnesses, who are signatories to the documents and therefore, to avoid examination of various witnesses interrogatories have been framed and leave of the Court was sought. Therefore, he submits that the order cannot be interfered with.

( 5 ) FOR proper appreciation it is relevant to extract Order XI Rules 1 and 2, which read as follows:"1. 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 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 to the oral cross-examination of a witness. 2. On an application for leave to deliver interrogatories, the particular interrogatories proposed to be delivered shall be submitted to the court. In deciding upon such application, the Court shall take into account any offer, which may be made by the party sought to be interrogated to deliver particulars, or to make documents, or to produce documents relating to the matters in question, or any of them, and leave shall be given as to such only of the interrogatories submitted as the Court shall consider necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs. "the primary requirement of Rule 1 is that interrogatory must relate to the matter in question in the suit. It is incumbent on the part of the lower Court to refer each interrogatory and satisfy itself whether such interrogatory is permissible and within the frame of Order XI Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the observations of the Supreme court in Raja Narain vs. Indira Gandhi. While dealing with the matter under order XI Rule 1 C. P. C. at para 27 the supreme Court observed as follows:"questions that may be relevant during cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as in