Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Shree Vijaya Fabrics - Appellant
Versus
Shivani Khanna - Respondent
CM(M) 266 of 2020 & CM No. 8000 of 2020(for stay)
Decided On : 23-09-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges trial court's order on interrogatories. (Para 1) |
| 2. interrogatories lack relevance for adjudication. (Para 2) |
| 3. cpc rules govern interrogatories process. (Para 3) |
| 4. court's liberal approach on interrogatories. (Para 4) |
| 5. trial court found interrogatories relevant. (Para 5) |
| 6. order upheld; petitioner directed to answer. (Para 6) |
| 7. application for stay disposed. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 4th September, 2019 passed by the Additional District Judge (Central)-10, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (Trial Court) in Civil Suit No.3254/2017 whereby the application filed on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs under Order XI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to serve interrogatories on the petitioner/defendant has been allowed.
2. It is contended by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/defendant that the interrogatories sought to be served on the petitioner/defendant have no relevance at all for the adjudication of the case.
3. Order XI details the entire procedure in respect of discovery by interrogatories. Order XI Rule 6 of the CPC gives the right to a party to object to the interrogatories in their affidavit in answer. Thereafter, Order XI Rules 7, 10 and 11 of the CPC give power to the Court to decide on the aforesaid objections taken to any of the interrogatories and the sufficiency or otherwise of the answers given to the interrogatories. In this regard, reference may be made to Order XI Rules 6, 7, 10 and 11 of the CPC, which are set out hereinbelow:
"Order XI
"6. Objections to interrogatories by answer. - Any objection to answering any interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit, or that the matters inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage, [or on the ground of privilege or any other ground ], may be taken in the affidavit in answer.
7. Setting aside and striking out interrogatories. - Any interrogatories may be set aside on the ground that they have been exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously, or struck out on the ground that they are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous; and any application for this purpose may be made within seven days after service of the interrogatories.
xxx xxx xxx
10. No exception to be taken. No exceptions shall be taken to any affidavit in answer, but the sufficiency or otherwise of any such affidavit objected to as insufficient shall be determined by the Court.
11. Order to answer or answer further. Where any person interrogated omits to answer, or answer insufficiently, the party interrogating may apply to the Court for an order requiring him to answer, or to answer further, as the case may be. And an order may be made requiring him to answer or answer further, either by affidavit or by viva voce examination as the Court may direct."
4. The above provisions have been interpreted by this Court in a catena of judgments (see Sharda Dhir Vs. Ashok Kumar Makhija and Ors. MANU/DE/1021/2002, Canara Bank Vs. Rajiv Tyagi & Association & Anr. ILR (2010) III Delhi 270 and Transport Corporation of India vs. Reserve Bank of India MANU/DE/2499/2017). I have, in a recent judgment in Tara Batra Vs. Punam A. Kumar & Ors. MANU/DE/1968/2021, while following the previous judgments of this Court, held that Courts while deciding an application seeking leave to administer interrogatories have to only consider whether the interrogatories sought to be administered have any bearing on the case. The Courts have to be liberal and not hyper- technical in allowing the use of interrogatories as the interrogatories help shorten the controversy between the parties and hence, reduce the time taken for the trial. It has also been held that once the interrogatories are served upon the party, the said party has to answer the interrogatories on affidavit and i
The court affirmed that interrogatories are relevant for adjudication and should not be obstructed by technical objections, enhancing the efficiency of trials.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the purpose of providing the procedure of discovery by interrogatories in the CPC is to shorten the litigation, enable a party to obtain an ad....
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....
A party must specify deficiencies in answers to interrogatories clearly; viva voce examination is only warranted in exceptional cases where evasive tactics are employed.
The duty of the court to actively seek the truth and the power of interrogatories to narrow the issues and make the trial less time-consuming.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
