Interrogatories are permissible under O. 11, Rr. 1 and 2, C. P. C. where they relate to matters in question and can shorten litigation.

( 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. and Raj Narayan v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi and Ors. , AIR 1972 SC 1302 that service of such interrogatories would have cut down the litigation as there was earlier a suit for partition between the parties in respect of said property and the decree had been passed in the said suit and the defendant had filed first appeal in this court, namely, first appeal No. 931/1997 which is pending in this Court. He submitted that the very object of O. 11, Rr. 1 and 2, c. P. C. is to elicit certain information from the defendant which could cut down the controversy and the suit filed for possession and mesne profit by the plaintiff who is bona fide purchaser of the property in question could be cut short.

( 4 ) NOBODY appeared on behalf of the respondents-defendants despite service on the legal representatives of Govind Ram. In absence of respondents, therefore, the matter was heard ex parte.

( 5 ) IN the case of Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira nehru Gandhi reported in AIR 1972 SC 3702, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"questions that may be relevant during cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. The only questions that are relevant as interrogatories are those relating to "any matters in question. " The interrogatories served must have reasonably close connection with "matters in question".

5a. In the case of M/s. Hira Lal Dhanpat rai v. Laxmichand, reported in 1993 (1)RLW 469, this Hon'ble Court has held as under:"so long as the interrogatories sought to be served, are relating to and relevant to matters in question having reasonable close connection, the same may be permitted and the mere fact that those facts can be proved by other evidence is no ground for refusing the permission to serve interrogatories. In this connection reference may be made to jamaitrai Bishansarup v. Rai Bahadur Motil chamaria (AIR 1960 Cal 536), wherein it has been observed as under : "interrogatories cannot be disallowed merely on the ground that the party interrogating has other means of proving the facts in question since one legitimate purpose of interrogatories is to obtain admission. "

( 6 ) IN the case of P. Balan v. Central Bank of India, Calicut reported in AIR 2000 Ker 24, the Kerala High Court has observed as under:

"the object and purpose of serving interrogatories is to enable a party to require information from his opponent for the purpose of maintaining his own case or for destroying the case of the adversary. The answering of the interrogatories might save expenses and shorten the litigation of enabling a party to obtain from the other side information as to material facts regarding the questions in dispute or issues raised or to obtain admission of facts which the plaintiff has to prove on any issue. Answering the interrogatories might often