Back
1986 Supreme(AP) 147
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.KODANDA RAMAYYA
LALINDA SHIPPING INC.LIBERIA CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT 80 BOARD STREET, MONROVIA, LIBERIA, REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.A.ANANTH, MADRAS - Appellant
Versus
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF VISAKHAPATNAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN - Respondent
Decided On : 03-28-86
The scope and purpose of interrogatories under Order 11 Rule 1, CPC, and the principles governing the court's discretion in granting leave to administer interrogatories.
Headnote:
ORDER 11 RULE 1 CPC - INTERROGATORIES - RELEVANCY - SCOPE AND PURPOSE - COURT'S DISCRETION - PROCEDURE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration that they are not liable for damages due to the collision of their ship with the defendant's jetty and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,71,658-44 wrongfully collected by defendants. The plaintiffs filed an application seeking permission to deliver interrogatories to the defendant under Order 11 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. The defendant contested the application. The court below dismissed the application holding that leave cannot be granted and the party cannot be permitted to know the defense of the opponent under such an application.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the questions framed by the plaintiffs were not properly framed and were irrelevant, prolix, and outside the purview of Order 11 Rule 1, CPC. The court further held that the court below erred in holding that there is no question of any admission to be made at this stage by answering the interrogatories to lessen the evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the questions framed by the plaintiffs were properly framed and relevant under Order 11 Rule 1, CPC? 2. Whether the court below erred in holding that there is no question of any admission to be made at this stage by answering the interrogatories to lessen the evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the questions framed by the plaintiffs were not properly framed and were irrelevant, prolix, and outside the purview of Order 11 Rule 1, CPC. The court relied on the following principles: (a) Interrogatories must be confined to the matters which are in issue. (b) Interrogatories, which relate solely to credit, that is, questions which are only put to test the credibility for witnesses are not allowed. (c) The interrogatories shall not be oppressive and they should not be allowed if they exceed the legitimate requirements of a particular occasion. They should not put an undue burden on the party interrogated. (d) The interrogatories must be bonafide, must not be aimed to use for others or at a future litigation. (e) The interrogatories cannot be made in respect of contents of documents or which may tend to incriminate the material. (f) The interrogatories shall have a note at the foot if they are administered to more than one person. 2. The court held that the court below erred in holding that there is no question of any admission to be made at this stage by answering the interrogatories to lessen the evidence. The court held that one of the objects of the interrogatories is to secure admission of the other side so that the person on whom the burden lies need not waste time and money in proving the same when those facts are admitted or not contested.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and permitted the plaintiff to make a fresh application in accordance with law and directed the lower court to consider the same on merits.
( 1 ) THIS revision is filed against the order dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs seeking the relief to deliver interrogatories to the defendant, under Order 11 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiffs filed, the suit for a declaration that they are not liable for any damages due to the collision of their ship with the Jetti of the defendant-Port and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,71, 658-44, wrongfully collected by defendants. Written statement was filed by the defendants denying their liability. The present application out of which the CRP. arises was filed seeking permission to deliver interrogatories. The defendant contested the said application. The court below held that leave cannot be granted and the party cannot be permitted to know the defence of the opponent under such an application and the pleading in this case is sufficient and no question of admission to be made by the defendant would arise at this stage and if the defendant fails to prove his claim, he will fail and hence there is no need to grant permission ought for.
( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the court below failed to apply its mind and see whether the interrogatories are relevant or not and it erred in thinking that the plaintiff cannot obtain admission and it must. be left for the parties to adduce evidence and the further observation of the court below that if the defendant fails to prove his claim, it is advantageous to the plaintiff, betrays the total ignorance of the legal position and consequently the order is liable to be revised.
( 3 ) I have gone through the interrogatories sought to be administered with the help of both the counsel. Both the counsel did agree that the very questions sought to be administered to the defendant under the leave of the court are not properly framed and some of them are irrelevant, prolex and outside the purview of Order 11 Rule 1, CPC.
( 4 ) THE practice in recent years in our courts discloses that this machinery is not being used and as Odger observed, there is some art required in drawing interrogatories. Apart from the art in drawing the interrogatories, the present application betrays total disregard of requirement of law. What questions can be the subject matter of interrogatories and what are not has to be borne in mind in framing these questions.
( 5 ) IT is necessary to look at Order 11 Rule 1, CPC. , which is in the following terms :"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 person 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 cross-examination of a witness. "it is clear that this rule in its main clause does not embody any principle on which the interrogatories can be ordered. The two provisos indicate two rules, Viz. , (1) no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to same partly without an order for that purpose; and (2) the interrogatories that may be administered in oral cross-examination of witness shall be deemed to be, irrelevant. Indian Courts fairly accepted the rule obtained in England in respect of this procedure under Order 31 of the rules of the Supreme Court of 1883. The object of interrogating is twofold:"first, to obtain admissions to facilitate the proof of your own case; secondly, to ascertain, so far as you may, the case of your opponent". . Further, it will save time and money. The decided cases disclose broadly the following principles; (1) The interrogatori
