The nature of interrogatories should not be used as a method to fish out materials to prove the plaintiff's case, and delay in filing the application for interrogatories may show lack of bona fides.

The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order and decreetal order dated 28. 2009 passed in I.A.No.684 of 2008 in O.S.No.118 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari.

2. The suit is of the year 1999. The suit has been filed for the following relief:-

"a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men servants and subordinates from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in particular and also evicting the plaintiff from out of the suit property by force."

The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, the second defendant, the second respondent herein has filed a written statement on 26. 2000. The revision petitioner, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and the matter is posted for further evidence of plaintiffs side. At this stage, the application I.A.No.684 of 2008 has been filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff setting out the list of interrogatories calling upon the defendants 1 and 2 to answer the same along with documents. This application was resisted by the first respondent/1st defendant stating that the application itself is belated and intended to prolong the adjudication of the suit and it is not bona fide.

3. The Trial court having heard the matter at length came to the conclusion that in the written statement the Government has pleaded that the land in question has been acquired and distributed to the Adi Dravida people as house plots. According to the court below, plaintiff has to prove his case for permanent injunction on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. Furthermore, when the suit is filed in the year 1999 and the written statement has been filed on 26. 2000, the revision petitioner/plaintiff was well aware of the stand of the respondents/defendants 1 and 2, and could have filed the said petition much earlier. The filing of the said application after the commencement of the trial and closing of the evidence of P.W.1, shows that the intention of the revision petitioner is to drag on the proceedings and to delay the process of adjudication of the trial. The court below observed that the long delay of eight years in filing the application shows the lack of bona fides. Consequently, the court below dismissed the application. Aggrieved by that order, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the present revision.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff stated that the main object of interrogatories is to save expenses and time so that the adjudication in the suit can be completed at the earliest. He relied upon the following decisions:-

(1) Thakur Prasad - vs. - Md.Sohayal and others reported in AIR 1977 Patna 233,

(2) P.Balan - vs. - Central Bank of India, Calicut reported in AIR 2000 Kerala 24,

(3) M/s.Delhi Vanaspati Syndicate - vs. -K.C.Chawala reported in AIR 1983 Jammu and Kashmir 65 and

(4) Bhakta Charan Mallik - vs. - Nataorar Mallik and others reported in AIR 1991 Orissa 319.

5. In the above decisions, it was held that Order 11 Rule 1 CPC though provides for interrogatories to be served one or other parties to the litigation to obtain information with regard to certain material aspects of the dispute in order to conclude the trial at an early date, however, the nature of interrogatories should not be used as a method to fish out materials to prove the case of the plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff claims to be a cultivating tenant of the suit property and prays for permanent injunction. It is for him to prove his case on merits and the attempt to cull out the materials in the form of interrogatories to strengthen the revision petitioner/plaintiffs case cannot be termed as a bona fide exercise so as to enable him to invoke the provision of Order XI Rules 1 and 2 CPC. In the present case, the delay of 8 years in filing the application also stands against the revision petitioner/plaintiff. The Court below was justified in dismissing the applic