Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1999 Supreme(Ker) 343

Kerala High Court
M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR
P.Balan - Appellant
Versus
Central Bank of India, Calicut - Respondent
Decided On : 09/22/1999

Advocates:
O. Ramachandran Nambiar and K. P. Santhi, for Petitioner; E. R. Venkiteswaran, for Respondent.

The legal principle established is that interrogatories should be used liberally to enable fair trial and save costs, and they should be relevant to the matters in question in the suit.

Headnote:
Interrogatories - Civil Procedure - Order XI, Rule 1, Rule 2, Rule 6, Rule 7 - The court discussed the admissibility of interrogatories and the legal principles governing their use in civil procedure. It emphasized the importance of interrogatories in obtaining information for maintaining or destroying a case, shortening litigation, and serving the interest of justice. The court highlighted the need for interrogatories to be relevant to the matters in question in the suit and to be used liberally to enable fair trial and save costs. The court set aside the previous order and remitted the matter to the lower court for a fresh decision through a speaking order.
Fact of the Case:

The 1st defendant challenged the order passed in a case seeking recovery of a sum allegedly due on a term loan and a cash credit transaction. The defendant sought to call upon the plaintiff to answer interrogatories, which the court below dismissed as unnecessary and intended to delay the trial of the suit.
Finding of the Court:

The court found merit in the defendant's contention that the admissibility of the interrogatories had not been considered correctly by the court below. It set aside the previous order and remitted the matter to the lower court for a fresh decision through a speaking order.
Issues: The main issue was the admissibility of the interrogatories and whether they were necessary for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of interrogatories in obtaining information for maintaining or destroying a case, shortening litigation, and serving the interest of justice. It highlighted the need for interrogatories to be relevant to the matters in question in the suit and to be used liberally to enable fair trial and save costs.
Final Decision: The court set aside the previous order and remitted the matter to the lower court for a fresh decision through a speaking order.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Interrogatories must be confined to facts relevant to the matters in issue in the suit (!) (!) . - Courts should use interrogatories liberally to enable fair trials and save costs, provided they are not abused (!) . - Interrogatories may be disallowed if they are irrelevant, unnecessary, vexatious, or sought to cause delay (!) (!) . - Courts must consider whether interrogatories will help dispose of the suit fairly or save litigation costs (!) (!) . - The appellate court set aside the lower court’s order for failing to properly consider the admissibility of interrogatories (!) . - A speaking order is required to address each interrogatory’s admissibility on merits (!) . - The revision petition highlighted that the lower order was non-speaking and did not assess the interrogatories’ relevance correctly (!) (!) . - Directions were given for the lower court to decide the matter within one month and to expedite the suit’s disposal (!) .

What is the proper scope and admissibility of interrogatories in civil procedure?

How should courts assess whether interrogatories are relevant and necessary for a fair trial?

What standards govern the setting aside of orders related to interrogatories on appeal?

ORDER :-

The 1st defendant in O. S. 274/97 of the sub Court, Kozhikode challenges the order passed in I. A. 6076/98 filed by him in the case. The request of the petitioner is that the plaintiff in the suit be called upon to answer the interrogatories presented by him. The Court below dismissed the petition with the following observations :

"Heard. The details and answers sought as per this I. A. are well within the knowledge of the petitioner and also revealed by the documents and Account sheet produced by the plaintiff. No further clarification necessary. I. A. dismissed. No costs."

2. The respondent herein filed the suit seeking recovery of a total sum of Rs. 4,29,345.23 from the defendant allegedly due on a term loan of Rs. 30,000/- given on 22-8-1981 and a cash credit transaction of Rs. 30,000/-allowed on the same date. The petitioner admitted his signatures in the relevant documents including the confirmation letter produced by the plaintiff; but contended that it was a document concocted using one of the signed blank papers which the petitioner was compelled to sign at the time of release of the loans. He challenged the statement of accounts and calculation of interest and even the admissibility of the interest claimed by the plaintiff. According to him, only 12% interest was payable.

3. The interrogatories put forth included questions as to the exact amount of the loans; the precise rate of interest calculated; whether interest was enhanced at any time and if so at what rate; whether the 1st defendant has paid up any amount towards the loan and if so on which all dates; whether the amounts mentioned in the statement of account included anything other than the principal and interest; whether the loans in question were disbursed pursuant to any specific scheme introduced by the Government and whether the plaintiff's concern is accepted by the plaintiff as a small scale industry duly registered under the law. The plaintiff opposed the petition pointing out that the plaintiff himself knows the answers to most of these questions and that they are unnecessary and intended only to delay the trial of the suit. It was in this background that the aforesaid order was passed.

4. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the Court below has not considered the admissibility of the interrogatories from the correct perspective and the impugned order is also not speaking in nature. It is pointed out that in view of the specific contention in the written statement that the confirmation letter was cooked up using signed papers, the plaintiff is bound to convince the Court with regard to the admissibility of the various amounts mentioned in the statement as also the manner of calculation. It is also pointed out that since the contract is to pay interest linked with the R.B.I. rate, information is necessary with regard to the rate of interest actually prevailing from time to time and made applicable to the two loan transactions which are of different nature and that the answer to the interrogatories is hence quite essential.

5. Since there is a contention that the impugned order was passed without understanding the scope and nature of the provisions relating to interrogatories and in view of the request of Sri Ramachandran Nambiar that this Court might lay down the law on the point, I propose to deal with the matter in some detail. Order XI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that either party to a suit may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties and that the interrogatories shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories are to be answered by one or other of the parties. The proviso to the Rule is to the effect that interrogatories which do not relate to the matters in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness. Rule 2 enables the Court to take into accou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document