( 1 ) NONE present for the respondents despite service.

( 2 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner-plaintiff has challenged the order, D/- 20-8-2008, whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application under 0. 11, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. filed by petitioner-plaintiff seeking the defendants to be served with certain interrogatories filed with the said application.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court by the impugned order, D/- 20-8-2008 has virtually tried to answer these questions in the impugned order on behalf of the defendants without even calling upon the defendants to answer the said interrogatories. He submitted, relying upon the various decisions, like Ramlal Sao v. Tansingh Lal Singh, air 1952 Nag 135, Jamaitri Bishansarup v. Rai Bahadur Moti Lal. AIR 1960 Cal 536. Ganga Devi v. Krushana Prasad Sharma, AIR 1967 Orissa 19, Thakur Prasad v. Md. Sahayal, AIR 1977 Pat 233, Janki Ballav patnaik v. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. , air 1989 Orissa 216, M/s. Hira Lal Dhanpat rai v. Laxmi Chand, RLW 1993 (1) 469, P. Balan v. Central Bank of India, AIR 2000 kerala 24, Smt. Sharda Dhir v. Ashok Kumar makhija and Ors.