Objections regarding the relevancy of interrogatories can be raised even after leave to serve the interrogatories is granted, and interrogatories should be related to matters in question in the suit and should not be in the nature of a fishing enquiry.

ORDER :- This is an application under Order XI, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC), filed by the defendant, praying for directions, to plaintiff No. 1, to answer the interrogatiories served on him with IA 2729/96. The plaintiff has filed reply opposing the application.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of the above application briefly are: that the plaintiffs filed the suit against the applicant/defendant for perpetual and mandatory injunction, restraining the defendant, her employees, agents, servants etc. from in any manner interfering or causing obstruction in the ingress to and egress from the first floor of the premises No. B-25, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi (for short suit property), as well as for mandatory injunction for directing the defendant to remove iron gates from the space, leading from the ground floor to the first floor of the suit premises. The applicant/defendant filed written statement pleading therein that in the garb of perpetual injunction the plaintiffs are seeking relief of possession; that plaintiff No. 1 is a sham legal entity and (sic) a front to violate and defeat fiscal law and that this company was a proprietary concern of one Mr. R. C. Puri. Reply to the plaintiffs' applications under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC were also filed. The applicant/defendant has also filed a suit against the plaintiff No. 1 herein (Suit No. 2953/95) for recession of contract dated 13th April, 1992, in respect of the suit property, for damages and for permanent injunction. These suits are being tried together.

3. Applications for grant of interim relief were filed by both the parties in the said suit. This Court by a detailed order dated 6th May, 1997, allowed the plaintiff No. 1 to take possession of the first floor of the suit premises subject to his depositing Rs. 35 lacs in the Court, and they were permitted to carry out repairs and furnishing of the first floor of the suit premises. The sum of Rs. 35 lacs were ordered to be released to the defendant against security. It was further ordered that the amount of Rs. 35 lacs would liable to be refunded by the applicant/defendant to the plaintiffs in the eventuality of the suit being dismissed and subject to plaintiff No. 2 vacating the first floor fo the suit premises.

4. On 18th March, 1996 applicant/defendant filed an application under Order 11, Rules 1 and 2, CPC seeking leave to deliver interrogatories to plaintiff No. 1. Application was allowed and the plaintiff No. 1 was directed to answer the interrogatories under Order 11, Rule 8, CPC. It was observed that the interrogatories relate to the matter in question in the suit. In reply to the interrogatories, Director of the plaintiff No. 1, Mr. S. S. Rawat filed an affidavit on 4th May, 1999. In the reply-affidavit it was inter alia claimed that the interrogatories Nos. 6 to 14 were irrelevant. Thereafter, the applicant/defendant filed a contempt petition (CCP 94/99) urging therein, that a finding was already recorded, by the Court to the effect that the interrogatories relate to the matter in question in the suit, therefore, it was not open to the plaintiff No. 1 to disobey and decline to answer to the aforesaid interrogatories on the ground that the same are not relevant. It was prayed that the plaintiff No. 1 by affronting the order dated 15-1-1999, had committed contempt of this Court. However, the contempt petition was dismissed on 11-10-99.

5. Now abovenoted application under Order XI, Rule 11, CPC has been filed by the applicant/defendant praying for directions to the plaintiff No. 1 to answer the interrogatories already served on him. The plaintiff No. 1 has filed the reply opposing this application. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record. Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant argued that on 15-1-1999, when his I.A. 2729/96 was allowed and leave was granted to serve the interrogatories, a finding was recorded to the effect that the in