A defendant can deliver interrogatories to a codefendant if there is an issue between them, as 'opposite parties' does not confine to plaintiff and defendant, but means parties between whom there is some right to be adjudicated in the action or proceedings.

K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.

1. The defendants 1 to 4 in O.S. No. 152 of 1998 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Perurnbavoor arc the revision petitioners. They filed an application under O.11 R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code for short) calling upon the 5th defendant who is the respondent in this Civil Revision Petition to answer certain interrogatories. The learned Munsiff dismissed the application on the sole ground that the defendants are not entitled to file an application under O.11 R.1 of the Code against a codefendant. That order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has argued that the view taken by the Munsiff that the defendant cannot file an application under Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code against a codefendant is illegal. It is argued that the principle underlying O.11 R.1 is to enable a party to gather necessary information from the opposite party. It is also argued that the words used are opposite party and not plaintiff and defendant. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the view taken by the learned Munsiffs perfectly correct and the defendant is not entitled to serve an interrogatory or a codefendant.

3. When one of the parties to the suit requires an information regarding the material facts of the case, he is allowed to administer to his adversary the questions to be answered by the opposite party. Such questions ate called interrogatories. The main object of interrogatory is to save expenses by enabling a party to obtain from his opponents information as to material facts. A party is entitled to interrogate his opponent with a view to ascertain the case he has to defend. O.11 R.1 of the CPC reads as follows:

"In any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties or any one or more of such panics and such interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of Such persons is required to answer:

Provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same partly without an order for that purpose: Provided also that interrogatories' which do not relate to any matters in question in the sail shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross examination of witness."

It is very pertinent to note that the words used are "opposite parties or any one or more of such parties". The words opposite parties do not mean or confine to plaintiff and defendant. It means parties between whom there is some right to be adjudicated in the action or proceedings.

4. In the case at hand, the question arising for consideration is whether a defendant can be allowed to deliver interrogatories to a codefendant. A reading of the Rule makes it clear that a defendant can be allowed to interrogate a codefendant if there is some question or an issue between them. The question whether a defendant can be allowed to deliver interrogatories on a codefendant is considered in Molly v. Kilby 1880 Vol. 15 Ch. Dn. 162. It was held that the word 'opposite' means having an opposite interest. It was also held that opposite party or parties does not mean a party or parties having an adverse interest but a party or parties between whom and the applicant an issue is joined. It was further held that a codefendant in a counter - claim is not an opposite party. The question was considered by the Court of Appeal in Shaw v. Smith (1886) 18 QBD 193. The Court of Appeal considered the practice regarding discovery or inspection as between coplaintiff or codefendant. It was held that the application need not fee as between plaintiff and defendant. It was held as follows:

"I should construe the passages of the Judgments in Brown v. Watkins (1886) 18 QBD 193 QBd 125 where it is said that the application must be against an opposite party, as meaning not that i