Dismissal of a suit under Rule 21 of Order 11 should only occur in cases of wilful default, and the court should exercise caution in applying the stringent provisions of the rule.

Revision Petitioners are the defendants in a suit for realisation of money. Respondent Bank filed O.S.168 of 1989 before Sub Court, North Paravur for realisation of amounts due as per a term loan advanced by the bank for purchase of a Ford Truck manufactured by M/s Simpson & Co., Madras. A petition was filed by defendants as LA. 693/91 seeking permission to serve interrogatories. The Bank filed LA. 873/91 to set aside the interrogatories. By order dt.31-10-1992 the court below directed the respondent to furnish answers to the interrogatories. A verified statement is alleged to have been filed by the Branch Manager of the Bank purporting to be the answers to the interrogatories. Alleging that the answers to some of the questions are evasive and incomplete, revision petitioners moved the court below by I.A.5101/92 under R.21 of O.11 C.P.C. to have the suit dismissed for want of prosecution. The petition was opposed by the plaintiff-respondent who inter alia contended that R.21 of O.11 can be invoked only if the party has failed to comply with the order to answer interrogatories. It was stated that the questions themselves were evasive and incapable of being answered except in the manner answered by the respondent.

2. After hearing both sides the court below dismissed the petition observing that the remedy of petitioners is to seek relief under R.11 of O.11 if they take the stand that the answers are insufficient or that further answers are necessary. That order is assailed in this revision.

3. Heard counsel.

4. Rule 21 of O.11 is a stringent provision enabling the party interrogating to apply to the court. to have the suit dismissed for want of prosecution if the party failing to comply with any order to answer interrogatories is the plaintiff or to have the defence struck out if he is the defendant. By sub-rule (2) to this rule introduced by the amendment of 1976 the plaintiff 'whose suit has been dismissed under sub-rule (1) of R.21 shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action. In view of the drastic consequence due to the dismissal of the suit under R.21, an order to dismiss the suit or to strike out the defence should not be made unless the default has been wilful. In other words, such an order should only be made as a last resort.

5. The procedure to be followed in the matter on discovery by interrogatories is contained in Order 11 C.P.C. R. I enables the plaintiff or the defendant in a suit to serve interrogatories on the opposite party with leave of court. The particular interrogatories proposed to be delivered are to be submitted to the court. Objection can be taken in answering any interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit. Objection can also be taken to answer any interrogatory on the ground of privilege or that the matters enquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage. It is also open to the opposite party to set aside the interrogatory on the ground that they have been exhibited unreasonably or vexatious ly. The interrogatories can be struck out on the ground that

they are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous. The answers to the interrogatories are to be filed by an affidavit. R.10 provides that no exception 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. The consideration of the sufficiency or otherwise of the answers given to the interrogatories can be considered by the court on an application presented under R.11 That rule enables the court to make an order requiring the party to answer further cither by affidavit or by viva voce examination, as the court may direct. The consequence of the non-compliance with the order to answer interrogatories is provided in R.21 referred earlier.

6. The main aspect to be considered is whether mere failure by a party to comply with an ord