Petitioner has challenged order dated 13.07.2012 passed by Sub-Judge, VII- Muzaffarpur in Money Suit No. 16 of 2010 whereby and whereunder rejected the prayer of the petitioner made under Order-XI Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C.

2. In order to properly adjudicate upon the dispute, a brief fact of the case has to be stated.

Respondent/Defendant No.1 Rajesh Kumar Singh @ Munna is said to have opened a bank account under Respondent No.2, State Bank of India, A.D.B. Branch, Saraiya in the name of plaintiff in collusive manner and managed to siphon huge amount appertaining to Rs. 8,18,62,394/- whereupon Money Suit No. 16/2010 has been filed. On being noticed, both the Respondents/defendants appeared. Because of the fact that Respondent/defendant no.1, Rajesh Kumar Singh @ Munna failed to file WS within the stipulated time, therefore, he has been debarred. However, Respondent/defendant No.2, State Bank of India, A.D.B. Branch, Saraiya has filed WS controverting the allegation (Annexure-3). Subsequently thereof, petitioner/plaintiff filed petition under Order-XI Rule 1 & 2 (Annexure-5) along with questionnaire in terms of Appendix –‘C’ whereupon an objection has been raised by the Respondent/Defendant and after hearing the parties, by the order impugned the learned lower court had rejected the prayer made on behalf of petitioner/plaintiff, hence this petition.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that from perusal of the order impugned, it is evident that learned lower court had ignored the basic principle of law relating to interrogatories and that happens to be reason behind that several severe loopholes are found. The first and foremost argument on this score happens to be with regard to application of interrogatories which, as per submission, has been provided for early disposal of the suit, side by side, to slip from adopting cumbersome procedure. Any sort of admission or disclosure furnished by adversary on interrogatories is to be taken into account while adjudicating upon the matter and on account thereof, there happens to be relevancy of interrogatory in each and every case. So far this particular case is concerned, that has got much more importance because of the fact that the Respondent/Defendant No.1 posed himself to be Managing Director of firm, M/s Ram Pravesh Rai Estate (P) Ltd and further succeeded in opening account in the name of aforesaid firm duly represented by him in collusion with the bank officials and on that very score got a huge amount deposited as well as siphoned therefrom. Therefore, the questionnaire so put forward, in case allowed, would have revealed an actual affair and on account thereof, would have shortened the cumbersome procedural law, whereunder the petitioner is found relinquished to call for each and every document having in possession of Respondent/Defendant No.2, State Bank of India, A.D.B. Branch, Saraiya, for an exhibit of the record.

4. It has also been submitted that Hon’ble Apex Court have taken note of the aforesaid provision of law and held that Subordinate courts should follow such procedure whenever so prayed for to cut short the time expected in consuming while arriving at finality of the litigation. It has also been submitted that principle has been framed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in likewise manner criteria has been laid down for exercising the eventualities of the interrogatory. The facts of the present case fully fit in, hence the order impugned does not justify its relevance.

5. It has further been submitted that learned lower court had blatantly refused against Respondent/Defendant No.1 on the ground that he has not filed WS though proceeding against him has been allowed to sail under Rule-VIII Rule 10 C.P.C. That means to say, even in absence of his WS, the Respondent/Defendant No.1 has got active involvement during trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon AIR 2012 SC 2010 (Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshtriay Rajakula Vamsathu Mad