Interrogatories can be delivered upon the adversary provided they are necessary for obtaining information from the adversary either to maintain the case of the party administering them or even to destroy the case of the adversary. Interrogatories cannot be allowed to be delivered in case they are in the nature of making fishing inquiries from the adversary. Interrogatories must be confined to facts which are relevant to the matters in question in the suit.

( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of the application of the plaintiff for delivering interrogatories upon defendant No. 2. The brief facts which have resulted in filing the present application are that :- 7 The plaintiff No. 3, the wife and plaintiffs 1 and 2 the son and daughter of defendant No. I, have filed this suit for partition, rendition of accounts and declaration in respect of certain properties, as have been mentioned in the plaint. The allegations made in the plaint are th. it defendants 1 to 4 were carrying on business at various places in India ann abroad as members of a joint Hindu family and some of the business name owned by the said joint hindu family arc "khem Chand Raj Kumar", "khem Chand Vijay Kumar", "shiv Chand Steel Rolling Mills", "steel Corporation of Punjab", "khem Chand Ajay Kumar", "malvika Machine Tools" be-iides others. It is alleged that defendant No. 2 being the eldest male member of the family had been acting as Manager and Karta of Hindu Undivided Family and had been maintaining all accounts of various incomes and funds belonging to the family. Plaintiffs I and 2 claiming themselves to betide co-parceners of the said joint Hindu property have claimed their share by partition in the properties which arc owned and possessed by the said joint Hindu family. The details of the properties which are stated to be owned by the joint Hindu family have been given in Annexure-A to the plaint.

( 2 ) IN the written statement filed by defendant No. 2 while the factum of joint Hindu family has not been denied, however, it is alleged that there was a partition of the joint Hindu family properties in 1957 and defendant No. 1 at that time is alleged to have satisfied himself that partition was in the best interest of defendant No. \ who was minor at that time. It is alleged that in 1973 defendant No. 1, on attaining majority had filed a suit challenging the previous partition and had claimed fresh partition and rendition of accounts. The said suit is stated to have been ultimately dismissed. It has also been stated in the written statement that except in Jalandhar, the Hindu Undivided Family with Lala Khem Chand as Karta owned no property or business in any other part of the country and it was only after his death that defendant No. 2 as Karta expanded the business manifolds. From the written statement of defendant No. 2 it is clear that factu m of there being the Hindu Undivided Family of which he was the Karta, has not been denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the Court framed issues on 23rd September, 1983. Some of the issues framed are as under :- 8. Have the plaintiffs or any one of them locus standi to re-open the partition, if proved, as per issues 1 to 7, and to what extent? 9. In case. Issue No. 8 is found for the plaintiff, were the partitions or any one of them referred to inissues 1 to 7 equal just, fair and conscionable? 10. In case, Issue No. 9 is found against the defendants, what properties can be re-partitioned and what are the respective shares of the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 4 therein? Present application has been filed by the plaintiffs novy for delivering interrogatories upon the defendants with a view to elicit information about the properties which are now to be partitioned. The case of the plaintiffs in the application is that the extent, the origin and the constitution of properties and business houses and corporations is a question material to the decision of the case and is a matter inissue. The interrogatories which are proposed to be delivered upon defendant No. 2 are stated to be relating to the matters in question in the suit.

( 3 ) REPLY to the application has been filed by delendant No. 2 alleging, inter aha, that the application was an abuse of the process of the Court as the joint Hindu family had been disrupted on 24th March, 1954 when part partition had taken place followed by complete partition on 25th March, 1957. Ids, therefore, alleged that the plaintif