1. Civil Revision Petition No.3570 of 2009 is directed against the order dated 09.03.2009 in I.A. No.626 of 2008 in O.S. No.145 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to grant leave to the petitioner/plaintiff to deliver interrogatories to the respondents/defendants to be answered within 10 days, was allowed.

2. Whereas, the defendants 1 and 3 in the above suit filed I.A. No.627 of 2008 under Order XI Rules 1 and 2 CPC to permit them to deliver interrogatories to the respondent/plaintiff for answering the same. The said petition was dismissed by the trial Court vide its order dated 09.03.2009. Challenging the same, Civil Revision Petition No.3575 of 2009 is filed.

3. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. In so far as allowing the petition filed by the plaintiff to serve interrogatories to the defendants, the learned counsel for the petitioners in Civil Revision Petition No.3570 of 2009 is not seriously challenging the order. But, he is seriously challenging the order impugned in the other Civil Revision Petition No.3575 of 2009. Therefore, for the purpose of disposal of the present Civil Revision Petitions, the facts in I.A. No.627 of 2008 are relevant.

5. The brief facts are that, the suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 104,03,25,039.04 ps. with interest @ 18% per annum on the ground that the plaintiff is a transferee of an actionable claim executed on 07.10.2005 by a private limited company M/s. Ellala Infotech Inc., registered in United States of America, and engaged in the business of Information Technology and investments; that the defendants 1 and 3 denied in toto the entire transaction including the alleged actionable claim or the obligation to pay the said entity, the amount of US $ 5 million; that, the defendants filed written statement and also filed draft issues, but till today, no original document evidencing the transaction was filed into the court; that, in order to shorten the trial, they may be permitted to serve the interrogatories annexed to the application under Order XI Rules 1 and 2 CPC on the plaintiff, who may be directed to answer the same.

6. The eleven (11) interrogatories annexed to the petition to be served on the plaintiff, are as follows:

1. Is it not true that M/s. Ellalla Infotech Inc. was not formed as a private limited co. or registered as such at United States of America?

2. Is it not true that M/s. Ellala Infotech Inc. was not in existence on any of the material dates viz. 24.02.1997 or 07.10.2005?

3. When was the entity M/s. Ellala Infotech Inc. incorporated mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint registered as Private Limited Company under the laws of any state or under federal laws in the United States of America?

4. Was the amount of US $ 5 million shown in the accounts of the said Ellala Infotech Inc. as having been remitted to India ?

5. What are the documents available now to show that the said entity was in existence as a private limited company in any state or States in the United States of America?

6. Did the entity M/s. Ellala Infotech Inc. submit returns to the authorities concerned in the state in which it is incorporated and carrying on business?

7. What are the documents available with the plaintiff to show that the above said amount is paid or remitted to the Defendants/ petitioners by the said entity?

8. Did the plaintiff obtain the transfer of the alleged actionable claim on payment of consideration to the said entity?

9. If the plaintiff had paid any consideration, what was the amount paid by way of consideration, what was the date on which the amount is paid and what was the place where the said amount was paid ?

10. What is the documentary proof in original to show that a consideration if any paid or alleged to have been paid by the