An interrogatory must relate to matters in question in the suit, and if the information sought does not relate to such matters, it is deemed irrelevant under the second proviso to Order 11 Rule 1 of C.P.C.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally by consent.

3. An application filed under Order 11 Rule 1 C.P.C. for discovery of facts by interrogatories (Exh.21) by the petitioner who is the original plaintiff has been rejected by the trial Court by the order passed on 20th February, 2018. The trial Court has expressed an opinion that out of two interrogatories delivered, one was already answered by giving an admission in that regard and the second interrogatory amounted to an attempt to prove the case of the plaintiff through the adversaries like the respondents. Therefore, the trial Court was of the view that this was not permissible under Order 11 Rule 1 of C.P.C. and rejected the application.

4. Shri RM. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the first interrogatory has already been answered by the respondents, second interrogatory has not been answered and since this interrogatory relates to a matter in question in the suit i.e. the exact location of the area in possession of the respondents and its boundaries and direction, the interrogatory is relevant and permissible under Order 11 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. He places his reliance upon the cases of Amruta Kaluji Shejul (since dead), through his L.Rs. Padmabai Amruta Shejul and others vs. Vithal ganpat Wadekar and others, reported in 2017(1) Mh.L.J. 539, Shrivallabh s/o. Dongardasji Sikchi vs. Ibrahimkhan s/o. Ahmadkhan and another, reported in 2015(2) Mh.L.J. 175 and Sonia Senroy vs. Amit Senroy, reported in 1998(3) Mh.L.J. 726.

5. Shri P.N. Kothari, learned counsel for the respondents disagrees with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the impugned order is legal and correct and it suffers from no manifest illegality or perversity. He submits that it is settled law that either the plaintiff has to stand or his own legs or fall down on the ground and the plaintiff cannot look upon the defendant to prove his case. He submits that requiring an adversary to give information in respect of matters in question in the suit is one thing and calling upon the adversary to even describe the boundaries of the suit property stated to be owned by the plaintiff is another thing. He submits that that the plaintiff in this case has not pleaded boundaries of the suit property, the suit property consists of area 3000 sq.ft. from out a larger piece of land and now the plaintiff is seeking help of the defendants to describe the boundaries of the suit property admeasuring 3000 sq.ft. According to him, when there is no fact pleaded, the fact of boundaries being pleaded, there is no question of making any denial of the pleading and as such there is no matter in question in the present suit.

6. We are concerned here with just one interrogatory which the petitioner desires to be answered by the respondents. This interrogatory reads as under :

“What is the exact location (with boundaries and directions) of the total area in possession of the defendant No.1 firm in the property bearing Municipal Corporation House No.71, situated in Ward No.65, on Residency Road, Sadar, Nagpur, having plot area of about 47,000 ft. ?”

7. This question has been put by the petitioner to the respondents only after respondents admitted in the written statement that they were in possession of the piece of land admeasuring 3000 sq.ft. from out of larger plot of 47000 sq.ft. According to the petitioner, if there is an admission about possession of a smaller piece of land from out of a larger piece of land, the respondents must be knowing the boundaries of the area which is in their possession and, therefore, it could not be said that requiring the respondents to divulge this information would amount to an effort to prove the case of the plaintiff at the cost of the defendants.

8. Before considering the crucial issue as to whether or not such an interrogatory can be permitted to be raised we must consider the scope of relevant provision in this reg