Interrogatories are permissible to obtain admissions of facts which are relevant to the issues and may shorten the trial, even if the party interrogating has other means of proving the facts.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for leave to deliver Interrogatories. The plaintiffs suit is for the recovery of Rs. 3,05,679/14/- or Rs. 5,78,403/ 8/6. The plaintiffs case in short is that there were dealings and transactions between the defendant in the firm name of Rai Bahadur Hardut Rai Motilal Chamaria and the plaintiff for the purchase and sale of various commodities and inter alia one of the terms of business was that the plaintiff would advance monies to or on account of the defendants at the request of the defendant by way of temporary accommodation repayable on demand. The defendant in the written statement states that there were transactions but denies that the terms and conditions mentioned in paragraph 2 (a) of the plaint were agreed by and between the parties. The defendant also denies that the plaintiff is entitled to any claim or to any indemnity for any loss.

( 2 ) THERE are two affidavits affirmed On behalf of the defendant; one is affirmed by Sugan Chand Sarowgee on 24-7-1959 and the other is an affidavit of Rai Bahadur Motilal Chamaria affirmed on 22-9-1959. In the affidavit of Sugan Chand Sarowgee it is alleged that the interrogatories asked for are matters of evidence to be gone into at the hearing or when accounts are to be taken and further that the answers to the interrogatories are best known to the plaintiff. In paragraph 8 of that affidavit it is denied that payments were made by the plaintiff to parties on behalf of the defendant as alleged or at all. In the affidavit affirmed by Rai Bahadur Motilal Chamaria it is stated that the statements made in paragraph, 8 of the affidavit affirmed by Sugan Chand Sarowgee are correct and it is denied that payments were made by the plaintiff to parties on behalf of the defendant.

( 3 ) COUNSEL for the defendant contended that interrogatories should not be allowed because the plaintiff has to prove his case and unless he has discharged the onus the defendant is not liable to answer any question. It was also contended that the plaintiff should possess evidence in support of his case and he could not obtain proof of his case by extracting interrogatories. No other objection was taken to the interrogatories.

( 4 ) ONE of the issues in this suit is whether there was a term of business as alleged by the plaintiff and whether payments were made by the plaintiff to the defendants.In the case of Sutherland (Duke) v. British Dominions Land Settlement Corporation, 1928-1 Ch. 746, Mr. Justice Tomlin said that the administering of interrogatories is a step which is more often desirable than undesirable and is to be encouraged rather than to be discouraged, because they not infrequently bring an action to an end at an earlier stage than otherwise would be the case, to the advantage of all parties concerned. The observations of Cotton L. J. in Attorney General v. Gaskill (1882) 20 Ch. D 519 relied on by Mr. Sen, are as follows:"the right to discovery remains the same, that is to say, a party has a right to interrogate with a view to obtaining an admission from his opponent of everything which is material and relevant to the issue raised on the pleadings. It was said in argument that it is not discovery where the plaintiff himself already knows the fact but that is a mere play on the word 'discovery'. Discovery is not limited to giving the plaintiff a knowledge of that which he does not know, but includes the getting an admission of anything which he has to prove on any issue which is raised between him and the defendant. To say that the pleadings have raised issues and that therefore the interrogatories should not be allowed is an entire fallacy. The object of the pleadings is to ascertain what the issues are, the object of interrogatories is not to learn what the issues are, but to see whether the party who interrogates cannot obtain an admission from his opponent which will make the burden of proof easier than it otherwise would have been. "

( 5 ) IN accordan