IMPORTANT POINTS
Whether the questions are relevant or otherwise are not governed by this Rule since, under Order XI Rule 6, it is always open to the petitioner to answer the questions or refuse to do so on the ground of irrelevancy or any other mentioned therein. This is particularly important because under Order XI Rule 11 of CPC, the Court has an adscititious power to ask the person, on whom the interrogatories have been served, to answer further on the application of the person serving it and on such order being passed, it is upto the said person to answer it or suffer an adverse inference as an inevitable consequence.

JUDGMENT :

The grant of leave by the Trial Court for the purpose of serving certain interrogatories on the petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.No.134 of 2018 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Erattupetta, has been challenged by him on the ground that the learned Court has not considered whether the interrogatories or any one of them are necessary either for fairly disposing of the suit or for saving costs.

2. The petitioner, who is the sole defendant in the suit, was called upon by the plaintiff -the respondent herein-through Ext.P3 interrogatories, preferred under Order XI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC for short), to answer certain questions relating to the post of “Devaswam Superintendant”, of temples belonging to the plaintiff – Trust.

3. According to the petitioner, he filed Ext.P4 objections to the interrogatories, asserting that the questions raised therein are not necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the suit, since the sole prayer therein is that he be injuncted from dealing with, selling, encumbering or committing waste of the plaint schedule properties, but that the ambit of the questions in the interrogatories relate to various other aspects in connection with the discharge of his office as the “Devaswam Superintendant” of seven of the temples of the Trust.

4. The petitioner alleges that even though the Trial Court was obligated-under the provisions of Order XI Rule 2 of the CPC-to first verify whether the interrogatories were necessary for disposal of the suit or for saving its costs, it has, in a mechanical fashion, granted leave to the plaintiff/ respondent to serve the interrogatories upon him merely holding that they are “relating to the position of the defendant as Devaswam Superintendant which was claimed by the defendant and the statement of accounts relating to the movable and other properties administered or possessed by the defendant” (sic).

5. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the impugned order of the Trial Court, a copy of which has been appended to this original petition as Ext.P5, be set aside.

6. In answer to the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by his counsel Shri. T.B. Thankappan and Shri.Ashish Vidyadharan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff-Smt. Bindu Sreekumar submitted that the suit had been preferred by her client with the specific allegation that the petitioner/defendant was proclaiming himself to be the “Devaswam Superintendant” of the temples of the plaintiff – Trust and that he was dealing with its properties as if it was his personal fiefdom She says that the plaintiff has specifically averred in the plaint, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P1, that the defendant is not authorized dejure or defacto to be in control of any of the temples of the Trust, but that he appears to have taken illegal possession of its properties, including both movable and immovable, on the assertion that he has been appointed as “Devaswam Superintendant” by the earlier Trustee of the plaintiff and therefore, that he has been sought to be injuncted, from dealing with the properties or encumbering the same, through a permanent prohibitory injunction.

7. Smt. Bindu Sreekumar further submitted that, as is also indubitable from the averments in the written statement filed by the defendant, a copy of which has been placed on record as Ext.P2, he claims to be the “Devaswam Superintendant” of seven temples of the plaintiff-Trust, appointed to such position by an erstwhile senior-most member of the family by name Shri.Moolamnal P.Ramavarma Raja and that he is thus authorized to administer the said temples and deal with its properties for its benefit, further asserting that he has not done anything contrary to the interest of the plaintiff-Trust at any point of time. She says that, therefore, it becomes absolutely relevant as to whether the petitioner is validly appointed as the “Devaswam Superintendant” at any point of time and whether he had mischievousl