Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

The challenge in this writ petition, filed by the respondent in Rent Control petition No.67/95 of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode, is against Exts.P7, P8 and P9 orders passed by that Court. Under Ext.P7 order the Rent Control Court has allowed an application to reopen the case which stood posted for hearing/judgment. Under Ext.P8 the Court has allowed an application under Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure and directed the petitioner to produce certain documents which were sought to be produced. Under Ext.P9 order the Rent Control Court has allowed an application filed by the respondents invoking Section 151 and order 11 Rule 1 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure and permitted the respondents to serve a few interrogatories to be answered by the petitioner.

2. We heard the submissions of Sri. K.P. Dandapani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Learned senior counsel would argue that the Rent Control Court has no power to permit service of interrogatories by a party on his adversary. Referring to Section 23 of the Act 2 of 1965, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Rent Control Court cannot assume powers given to the regular Civil Court trying suits other than those which are specifically conferred under that section.

3. Learned senior counsel would further submit that even assuming that there is power to permit service of interrogatories, such power has to be exercised before the commencement of trial and not at the present stage when the entire evidence is over and the case stands posted for judgment. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that it was in response to a remand order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No.25/1998 and RCA. 26/98 that the Rent Control Court is considering the Rent Control petition for fresh decision on the question as to whether the petitioner’s denial of the title claimed by the respondent is bonafide. The scope of the remand order was only to give opportunity to the appellants (respondents in this writ petition) to produce certain documents which were sought to be produced before the appellate authority. The applications which are now allowed by the Rent Control Court are all applications beyond the scope of the remand order and for that reason also the impugned orders are illegal.

4. Despite the persuasive submissions of the learned senior counsel, we do not find any warrant for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 277 of the Constitution for correcting the impugned orders. We are unable to accept the argument of the learned senior counsel that the Rent Control Court does not have power to permit service of interrogatories on the parties before it in terms of Order 11 Rule 1 of the CPC. It is Section 23 of Act 20 of 1965 which confers on the Rent Control Court the powers vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 23 provides as follows:-

“23. Summons, etc:=

(1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Accommodation Controller, the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority shall have the powers which are vested in a court under the CPC 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of the following matters:

(a) discovery and inspection.

(b) to (k) omitted.”

5. It is order 11 of the CPC which deals with discovery and inspection. Service of interrogatories on the opposite party is one of the modes of discovery envisaged by order 11 C.P.C, as will be clear from the very first rule in that order. We therefore have no doubt in our mind that the Rent Control Court is empowered in terms of Section 23 itself to permit service of interrogatories by parties before that court on their opposite party.

6. Even otherwise we are of the view that the impugned orders including Ext.P9 permitting service of interrogatories can be sustained on other reasons also. The learned Senior Counsel is right when he submits that the Rent Control petition was reman