There must be relevancy in both the interrogatories.

1. Challenging the order allowing the application for interrogatories under O.11, Rule 1 of C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff, Nanchil Kumaran, the defendant has filed this civil revision petition.

2. Govindasamy Reddiar filed a suit in O.S.No.128 of 1989 before the Sub Court, Poonamallee to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.49,000 being the past damages for wrongful use and occupation of the suit property belonging to the plaintiff and for further damages at the rate of Rs.100 per day as future damages from the date of plaint till the defendant surrenders possession.

3. The defendant, the petitioner herein, filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff was the benami of the suit property and that the suit property was actually purchased in his name by utilising the money pooled by the plaintiffs daughter, the erst-while wife of the petitioner herein, which included the defendants money to the tune of Rs.70,000 which is rd of the sale consideration and that earlier he filed a suit in O.S.No.1537 of 1987 for permanent injunction against the plaintiff in this suit and obtained interim injunction and that therefore, the defendant is not liable to pay any damages as claimed by the plaintiff.

4. In 1995 the plaintiff, the respondent herein filed a petition in I.A.No.166 of 1995 under O.11, Rule

1 of C.P.C. to grant him leave to serve the interrogatories and direct the defendant to answer the same within the time to be fixed by the court. Resisting this petition, the defendant filed a counter stating that the interrogatories are not relevant and the issues that arise in the instant suit should be decided only after the full-fledged trial after examining the witnesses in box and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. However, the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, on considering the petition and the counter and the arguments of the counsel for the parties, allowed the petition granting leave for interrogatories. This is challenged in this civil revision petition by the defendant in the suit.

6. Mr.Subramanian, the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would assail the order impugned on the following grounds:

“The interrogatories submitted by the plaintiff do not conform to matters which are in issue or sufficiently material at the present stage of the suit. Before proving the case of the plaintiff, he is not supposed to fish out evidence of defence from the defendant. When the defendant is ready to face the trial and subject himself for cross-examination, all the questions given in the interrogatories must be put to him in the cross-examination during the course of trial. The plaintiff has to enter into the box and prove his case first. Thereafter, the defendant has to enter into the box and prove his case. Furthermore, the interrogatories are not only irrelevant but also the questions are such that they are not admissible even to put those questions at the time of cross-examination in the box. When the requirements under O.11, Rule 1, C.P.C. are not complied with, the trial court ought to have dismissed the petition.”

7. On the other hand, Mr.Sundar Rajan, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, the respondent herein, would submit the following:

“The order impugned is perfectly legal. The interrogatories would only contain the questions which are quite relevant to the suit. If those questions are answered by the defendant, most of the legal questions would get settled and it would help the civil court to dispose of the suit fairly and save the time and cost. If the interrogatories are answered by the defendant, the same would narrow the scope of the suit and controversies at issue. Though detailed reasons have not been given in the impugned order, the conclusion by allowing the application under O.11, Rule 1, C.P.C. is correct. At any rate, invoking revisional jurisdiction is not permissible, since the impugned order does not call for interference so as to attract the provisions of