A party must specify deficiencies in answers to interrogatories clearly; viva voce examination is only warranted in exceptional cases where evasive tactics are employed.

JUDGMENT :

P. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

1. The plaintiff, who filed a suit for the recovery of money from a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of transport service, delivered interrogatories for the discovery of facts related to the suit when the defendants denied the plaint claim. Alleging that certain defendants did not fully answer the specific questions put to them while answering the interrogatories through Ext. P4 affidavit, the plaintiff further filed Ext.P12 application under Order XI Rule 11 read with Order XIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) for viva voce examination of the defendants.

2. The Sub Court dismissed the said application as per Ext.P13 order by finding that the plaintiff did not specifically state to which question the answers are incomplete or contradictory. The plaintiff challenges the said order by preferring the present original petition.

3. The petitioner contends that as he has no documentary evidence to prove the plaint claim, it is highly necessary to get proper and precise answers to the interrogatories originally submitted and thus viva voce examination of the respondents is unavoidable. The respondents contend that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the petitioner has no justification for filing the above-said application.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents. Before assessing the legality of the impugned order, it is necessary to delineate the legal framework governing the discovery of facts by delivery of interrogatories and the consequence of failure to answer the same.

5. Interrogatories are aimed at discovering facts. They will narrow down the controversy in a suit and enable the litigant to compel his opponent to disclose facts relating to the matters in question in a suit or other proceeding. Answers given on interrogatories and documents disclosed on the application for discovery of documents will form part of the evidence.

6. As per Rule 1 of Order XI of the Code, there are certain restrictions for delivering interrogatories. The interrogatories can be delivered only with the leave of the court and the party shall not deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same party, without the order of the court. The scope of interrogatories shall be related to any matters in question in the suit. The expression “matters in question in the suit” is similar to the facts in issue i.e., matters related to the existence or non-existence of any right or liability asserted or denied in the suit.

7. Matters in question/issue are indeed not as wide as matters that are relevant during the cross-examination of a witness in the suit. Therefore, the interrogatories that are not related to matters in issue will be deemed irrelevant, even if such matters might be admissible on oral cross-examination of a witness. The court will not grant leave to deliver such interrogatories. If the interrogatories relate to any matter in question or issue in the suit, the court must be very liberal in granting leave, as a general rule. It should ordinarily encourage the litigants to deliver the interrogatories to the opponent, especially for the reason that a party to a proceeding cannot, as of right, examine his opponent as a witness during the trial.

8. If the opposite party omits to answer the interrogatories or provides insufficient, vague, or evasive responses, the applicant has two options. He can apply to the court for leave to deliver a fresh set of interrogatories if it is helpful to pinpoint the shortcomings in the reply. Delivering more than one set of interrogatories, though restricted in the first proviso to Rule 1 of Order XI, the same provision makes it clear that it can be done with the permission of the court. A vague or evasive answer to the first set of interrogatories is certainly one of such eventualities in which the court can permit a party to deliver another set of interrogatories to nail down