The wide power conferred by S.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 allows the court to make orders relating to the delivery and answering of interrogatories at any time, either before the suit is decreed or during execution proceedings.

1. In proceedings in execution the judgment-debtor claimed protection of the provisions of Ordinance 9 of 1977. Thereupon the decree-holder served; certain interrogatories on the judgment-debtor. Overruling the objection of the judgment-debtor that no interrogatory could be served in execution proceedings on the opposite party, that court directed the judgment-debtor to answer the interrogatories. The judgment-debtor has come up in revision. The only point that arises for consideration is as to whether interrogatory could be served in execution proceedings and whether the opposite party on whom interrogatories are served could be directed to answer the same.

2. Reliance was placed on behalf of the judgment-debtor, revision petitioner, on Rule I of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 relating to discovery by interrogatories where reference only to suit and not to execution proceedings is made. Before the lower court also the same contention was raised.That court took the view that the suit does not terminate by judgment and decree and it terminates only when the fruits of the decree are realised and the execution proceedings have come to an end. This may be one approach, but I do not propose to rest my decision on that.

3. S.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confers jurisdiction on the court to make such orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to (among others) the delivery and answering of interrogatories at any time either of its own motion or on the application of any party. This power is wide enough to make the court competent to direct any party to answer interrogatories at any time before the suit is decreed, and after the suit is decreed in execution proceedings. The section aforesaid appears to follow the English procedure which enables the court to order discovery in any 'cause' or 'matter' in the Supreme Court to which the rules of the Supreme Court apply. This aspect has been adverted to by our Supreme Court in M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur (AIR 1972 SC 2379). It should in this connection be noticed that interrogatories are usually served on the opposite party to facilitate the proof of his own case and

"administering of interrogatories is to be encouraged as it is a means of getting admissions and tends to shorten litigation". See Mulla's commentaries on the Code of Civil Procedure, Thirteenth Edition, Vol. I at page 829.

4. At any rate I am not prepared to say that the execution court has no jurisdiction to direct the opposite party on whom the interrogatories have been served to answer the same. This jurisdiction is vested in a court under S.30 of the Code as already pointed out, be it that court is trying a suit or executing a decree.

In view of what is stated above there is no merit in this civil revision petition. The same is dismissed. There will be no order as regards costs.

Dismissed. CMP. No. 8776 of 1980 in CRP. 302/1978-A

I disposed of CRP. No. 302 of 1978 dismissing the same. The revision petition was against an order passed by the execution court allowing the decree-holder's application to serve certain interrogatories on the judgment-debtor. It was pointed out by the decision in the aforesaid revision petition that under S.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the court has jurisdiction to make such orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to (among others) the delivery and answering of interrogatories at any time, either on its own motion or on the application of any party. It was further pointed out that the execution court has therefore power and jurisdiction to pass orders as regards answering of interrogatories, though Order XI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as such may not be attracted to proceedings in execution, in so far as that order confers power as regards discovery and inspection "in any suit".

2. The decision aforesaid was on merits and not one for default of the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the learned