Thomas P. Joseph, J.

1. There is an agreement executed between the parties hereto on March 22, 2007 for purchase of 50 and odd acres of land for the consideration stated therein. As per the said agreement, certain amount was paid as advance to the proposed vendors, petitioners in these petitions. While so, the first respondent/plaintiff, the proposed purchaser rescinded the contract on the ground that property agreed to be sold has no marketable title and some of the original owners of the property from whom petitioners had agreed to acquire the land and transfer the same to the first respondent are non existent. Consequent to the rescission of the contract, first respondent filed O.S.No.218 of 2008 in the Court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam for realisation of advance sale consideration given to the petitioners and other defendants in the suit. In the plaint, first respondent alleged that he was constrained to rescind the contract on account of lack of marketable title for the property agreed to be conveyed and since the original owners of the property were non existent. Petitioners defended the suit contenting that that breach was on the part of the first respondent and that on account of the breach, they suffered loss to the tune of `.14 Crores and odd. They also made a counter claim for realisation of `.9 crores by way of damages to which the claim was confined. In answer to the counter claim, first respondent filed replication wherein he denied that he committed breach. He contended that he was made to believe that the property proposed to be sold to him is suitable for construction of a hotel but, later as against the information that was given to him he learned under the Right to Information Act (for short, "the RTI Act") that the properties proposed to be sold are cardamom estate or agricultural land. It was also pointed out by him in paragraph 13 of the replication that since he is a Non Resident Indian (for short, "NRI") he could not acquire plantation or agricultural land in view of the provisions of the FEMA and the Regulations framed under it. It was further contended that the agreement for sale was entered into between the first respondent, petitioners and the third defendant on the basis of assurance given by the petitioners and third defendant that the property could be utilised for construction of a hotel. Based on the pleading learned Sub Judge framed issues whether the said Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, whether petitioners and third defendant committed breach of contract (as alleged by the first respondent) first respondent is entitled to recover the amount claimed in the plaint and whether petitioners and the third defendant are entitled to the counter claim. After framing of issues, petitioner in W.P(C).No.24273 of 2010 (first defendant) filed I.A.No.7824 of 2009 for leave to serve interrogatories on the first respondent (interrogatories required to be answered as seen in pages 91 onwards of the paper book in W.P(C).No.24273 of 2010). Essentially the interrogatories required to be answered by the first respondent related to his claim of status as a NRI and whether he has acquired landed property in India. The application was opposed by the first respondent contending that in the nature of the claim made in the plaint, interrogatories are not relevant. Learned Sub Judge considered the question and passed Ext.P7, order holding that the limited questions to be answered in the suit are whether first respondent is entitled to refund of the advance sale consideration given to the petitioners and third defendant and whether petitioners and third defendant are entitled to get the amount shown in the counter claim in view of the loss allegedly suffered by them on account of alleged breach of contract by the first respondent. Learned Sub Judge was of the view that status of the first respondent as NRI has nothing to do with the disputes in question and in that view of the mat