Interrogatories under Order 11 Rule 1 C. P. C. should be allowed liberally to enable a party to know the nature of the opponent's case and to shorten the litigation.

A. K. PADHI, J.

( 1 ) CHALLENGING the order rejecting the application for interrogatories under Order 11, Rule 1, C. P. C. the plaintiff has filed this Civil Revision. The suit is for partition.

( 2 ) IN the written statement the defendant took the stand that : (a) Some of the properties belonging to the joint family has been left out from hotchpot; (b) Properties alienated before filing of the suit have been included in the suit schedule; and (c) Some of the plots included in the suit schedule have been exclusively settled in the names of the defendants.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF filed a petition under Order 11 Rule 1, C. P. C. calling upon the defendants to answer the interrogatories on the ground that the averments in the written statement are vague. The three interrogatories which the plaintiff prayed to be served on the defendants are :- (I) "what other joint family properties have been left out from the suit as stated by you in para 5 of your written statement and the detailed descriptions? (II) Have you sold any land out of the suit properties? Give the name and address of the purchasers, the dates of sales and the properties sold? (III) That in para 15 of your written statement you have mentioned that the suit plots Nos. 227, 1708 and 1711 under khata No. 125 has been settled in your name, Please furnish as to when it was settled and by whom?"defendants filed their counter to the application under Order 11 Rule 1, C. P. C. Trial court rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiff can know as to which of the properties have been settled with the defendants, which properties have been sold to strangers. Since the onus is on the plaintiff to prove its own case, the defendants should not be called upon to answer the interrogatories.

( 4 ) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner assailing the rejection order submits that in the interest of justice the defendants should be called upon to answer the interrogatories. The averments in paras 5, 13 and 15 in written statement are vague in nature. Therefore, to shorten the litigation the interrogatories should be allowed.

( 5 ) THE learned advocate for the opp. parties on the other hand, submits, if pleadings are vague then plaintiff has remedy under Order 6 Rule 5, C. P. C. A specific provision being there under Civil Procedure Code to call upon the defendants to clarify the pleadings, the plaintiff' application under Order 11 Rules 1 and 4, C. P. C. is not maintainable. Order passed rejecting the application under Order 11 Rule 4, C. P. C. not being in the nature of a case decided is also not revisable u/s. 115 of C. P. C. O. 11, R. 1, C. P. C. is meant for shortening a litigation calling the defendants to admit certain facts. In this case the application of the plaintiff being by way of clarification does not come within the scope of Order 11, Rule 1, C. P. C. and therefore the application had been rightly rejected.

( 6 ) ORDER 11, Rule 1, C. P. C. reads as follows:-"discovery by 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. As 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. "obviously the purpose of this rule 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 main object of interrogatories is to save expenses and shorten the litigation by enabling a party to obtain from his opponent