The main legal point established in the judgment is that objections to answering interrogatories must be taken separately in answer to each interrogatory as per O. XI R.6 CPC, and the consequences of failing to do so.

K. Narayana Kurup, J.

Defendants 1 to 4 in O.S. No. 1170/95 of the II Addl. Sub Judge's Court, Trivandrum are the revision petitioners. The revision is directed against the order of the trial Court in I.A. No. 2619/97 dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioners for setting aside and striking out the interrogatories.

2. The revision petitioners and respondents 1 to 5 herein are the legatees under a Will executed by the late His Highness Maharaja of Travancore on 28.11.1981. His Highness passed away on 20.7.1991. Thereafter, the Will was probated. Under the Will, the legatees are entitled to large extent of properties including the Kowdiar Palace, Trivandrum measuring 38 acres. An agreement for sale was executed by defendants I to 9 and the plaintiffs on 4.7.1993 for sale of 28 acres of land, viz, the Pal ace Extension Compound at the rate of Rs. 49,500/- per cent. Thereafter on 15.4.1994 a supplemental agreement is alleged to have been executed between the parties. However, this is denied by the plaintiffs. As per the condition of agreement,

the sale deed has to be executed on or before 25.10.1994. However, in the meantime, the Government, of Kerala issued a notification dated 13.12.1993 prohibiting sale or agreement for sale of land within the palace compound. The plaintiffs were accordingly informed of the prohibition. The case set up by the defendants is that by virtue of the aforesaid notification, the agreement for sale has become incapable of being performed and the plaintiffs can take back the advance of Rs. 50 lakhs. The plaintiffs did not relent and instead they filed the present suit for specific performance of agreement for sale. The defendants filed written statement denying the plaint averments and' based on the pleadings, issues were settled. Before the trial court, the plaintiffs filed 33 Nos. of interrogatories and sought leave of the court to serve the same on the defendants. The trial court as per order in I. A. 7441/96 granted leave for delivery of interrogatories in respect of question Nos.1 to 5,7 to 14,16 to 18, 20,21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30 and 32 and in respect of others it was declined. The revision petitioners herein thereupon filed an application under O. XI R.7 CPC (I. A. 2619/97) praying for setting aside/striking out the interrogatories. It was argued before the trial Court that the interrogatories have been exhibited unreasonably, vexatiously and that they are oppressive, unnecessary and scandalous. The trial court after hearing the matter however dismissed the same and this revision is directed against the aforesaid order of dismissal as already noticed.

3. According to learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the interrogatories sought to be delivered are lacking in bonafides. He would contend that they are vexatious, scandalous, irregular and oppressive. The further case set up is that most of the interrogatories directed to be delivered are irrelevant and bearing no nexus to the contentions raised in the suit. However, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/ respondents would contend that there is absolutely no basis either in law or on facts to set aside any of the interrogatories allowed to be delivered as per order dated 9.4.1997 in I.A. 7441/96 and the interrogatories directed to be delivered have a reasonable connection with the matters arising for consideration in the suit. In other words, the contention is that the interrogatories are relevant to the facts in issue. On a consideration of the rival contentions, I am satisfied that the order under challenge does not call for any interference in exercise of the revisional power conferred on this Court under S.115 CPC. On a perusal of the order dated 9.4.1997 produced by the plaintiffs along with the counter affidavit as Ext. R7(a), it can be seen that the trial court has adverted to the question of relevancy of the interrogatories sought to be delivered in meticulous detail and came to the conclusion that t