JUDGMENT

1. The issue that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether, prior to granting leave to serve interrogatories on the opposite party, the Court is proscribed, in law, from issuing a notice of the application seeking leave to serve interrogatories, calling for a response from the opposite party on the application.

2. The contention of Mr. Mukesh Rana, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that leave has necessarily to be granted, on an application preferred under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking leave to serve interrogatories, ex parte, and that, at that stage, the opposite party has no right to oppose grant of leave. It is only after the interrogatories are served on the opposite party, according to him, that the opposite party may, under Order XI Rule 6of the CPC, question the necessity of responding to one or more of the interrogatories served on him.

3. As this is the limited issue that arises for controversy, the factual dispute in the present case need not detain this court.

4. An application was preferred, by the petitioner, as the plaintiff before the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ"), in CS DJ 10/2021 (