JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder order dated 02.04.2019 passed in Title Eviction Suit No.01 of 2011 by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Bokaro has been assailed by which petition dated 21.08.2018 filed under Order XI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as per the pleadings made in the writ petition is that a suit has been filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff to the suit being Title Eviction Suit No.01 of 2011 inter alia for a decree khas vacant possession of the suit premises contained in the Schedule-B by evicting the defendant therefrom.

3. The case of the plaintiff inter alia is that he is one of the five partners of the firm. The firm purchased a piece of land in the name of the Partnership Firm, the building was existing on the said land, the defendant No.2 is a tenant of a shop room on monthly rental of Rs.600/-since the month of January, 1989.

4. The trial has begun and in pursuance to the summons, the petitioner has put his appearance and filed written statement as also the witnesses put forth by the plaintiff have been examined/cross-examined.

5. After the examination/cross-examination of the plaintiff, witnesses having been cross, petitioner has filed a petition on 21.08.2018 under Order XI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC making therein prayer for grant of permission to seek answers by way of interrogatories.

6. The said petition has been responded by the respondent No.1/plaintiff making objection to the said petition taking into consideration the object and spirit of the provision of Order XI Rule 1 as also the stage of the suit since the examination/cross-examination of the plaintiff witnesses have already been crossed.

7. The trial Court after considering the ground agitated by the petitioner in the petition dated 21.08.2018 as also the reply of the plaintiff, has passed an order on 02.04.2019 rejecting the petition dated 21.08.2018 against which the present writ petition has been filed.

8. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted by assailing the aforesaid order that the said interrogatories have been sought to be answered by the plaintiff which necessary for proper adjudication of the issues and further keeping the intent of the provision as contained under Order XI Rule 1 which provides that such application can be filed at any stage of the suit but the trial court has not appreciated that aspect of the matter and merely on the ground of stage of the suit, petition dated 21.08.2018 has been rejected and as such the said order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

9. This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going across the ground agitated in the writ petition as also finding recorded in the impugned order, deem it fit and proper to deal with the provision of Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, which reads hereunder as:

“1. Discovery of interrogatories.—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 parties, 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 party without an order for that purpose:

Provided also that interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness.”

10. The said provision provides to make an application either by the plaintiff or by the defendant to deliver interrogatories with the leave of the Court.

11. The spirit and intent of the said provision is to save the time and protracted trial which will be consumed in examination/cross-examination of the wi