The main legal point established in the judgment is that the opposite party has the right to oppose the grant of leave to serve interrogatories, and the court is not proscribed from issuing notice on the application seeking leave to serve interrogatories before deciding whether to grant or refuse such leave.

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 (Mamta v. Rishipal), under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, to serve interrogatories on the defendant. The application came up for hearing on 15th March, 2022, when the defendant submitted that he had not received any copy of the application and that, before granting leave to serve interrogatories on him, it was necessary that a copy of the application be supplied to him. The plaintiff, per contra, submitted, before the learned ADJ that the prayer for grant of leave to serve interrogatories had necessarily to be decided ex parte and that the defendant was not entitled to receive any copy of the application before an order granting leave to serve interrogatories was passed. He, however, cited, in this context, two decisions of pre-CPC vintage, namely Shamkissore Mundle v. Hosheebhoosun Biswas, ILR (1880) 5 Cal 707 and Prem Shukla v. Indra Nath, (l891) 18 Cal 420.

5. The learned ADJ observed that these decisions had been rendered in the 19th century, prior to the coming into force of the CPC and could not, therefore, be treated as authorities on the ambit of Order XI Rule 1. The learned ADJ also noted that, in Centrient Pharmaceuticals Netherlands B. V. v. Dalas Biotech Ltd., 2021 (85) PTC 267 (Del) this Court had dismissed the application for seeking leave to serve interrogatories after hearing both parties.

6. The learned ADJ also noted the wording of Order XI Rule 2 of the CPC, which reads thus:

"On an application for leave to deliver interrogatories, the particular interrogatories proposed to be delivered shall be submitted to the Court and that court shall decide within seven days from the day of filing of the said application. In deciding upon such application, the Court shall take into account any offer, which may be made by the party sought to be interrogated to deliver particulars, or to make admissions, or to produce documents relating to the matters in question, or any of them, and leave shall be given as to such only of the interrogatories submitted as the Court shall consider necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs". (Emphasis supplied)

7. Relying on the italicised words in Order XI Rule 2, the learned ADJ observed that the requirement of the Court, in taking a decision on the application seeking leave to serve interrogatories, having to take into account any offer made by the party sought to be interrogated to deliver particulars make admission or produce documents, necessarily implied that, before taking a decision on whether to grant, or not to grant, leave to serve interrogatories, the Court was required to hear the opposite party. The impugned order also notes the fact that, despite an opportunity having been granted to him in that regard, learned Counsel for the petitioner was unable to invite the attention of the