Interrogatories relating to matters in question and relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the issues should be allowed.

K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition by the plaintiff for examination of defendant No. 1 on delivery of interrogatories under O. 11, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Civil P. C. ('code' for short ).

( 2 ) IT is stated in the petition that in the plaint he has averred in para 24 that defendant 1 is a joint tort-feasor along with defendants 2 and 3. Defendant 1 in para 9 of the written statement has denied that it has anything to do with the libellous and offending articles published in the Illustrated Weekly of India dt. 18-24 May, 1986 and has any control over the contents of the magazine in keeping with the freedom of editor to publish what he considers fit. In para 10 of the written statement it specifically denied, its responsibility for payment of damages as a joint tort-feasor. In para 36 (b) of the written statement it denied that defendant 2 had printed and/or caused to be printed the offending articles in the press belonging to defendant 1. In para 36 (d) it further denied that being the employer of defendant 2 it is liable for damages for libellous and offending articles printed/published/circulated by defendant 2 within the ambit of his employment. On account of these denials in the written statement of defendant, the plaintiff has formulated as many as 22 interrogatories for defendant 1 to answer on oath.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT 1 in its counter has not denied the averments made in its written statement, but has contended that the interrogatories are not relevant to the issues and mostly they are matters of evidence which should not be allowed to he answered on oath in the form of interrogatories. Further, it cannot be compelled to disclose information regarding publication of the impugned articles at an interim stage. Therefore, the petition is liable to be rejected.

( 4 ) EVERY party to a suit is entitled to know the nature of his opponent's case, so that he may know beforehand what case he has to meet at the hearing. But he is not entitled to know the facts which constitute exclusively the evidence of his opponent's case, the reason being that it would enable an unscrupulous party to tamper with his opponent's witnesses, and to manufacture evidence in contradiction, and so shape his case as to defeat justice. The nature of a plaintiff's case is disclosed in his plaint. The nature of a defendant's case is disclosed in his written statement. But a plaint or a written statement may not sufficiently disclose the nature of a party's case, and to make good the deficiency, either party may administer interrogatories in writing to the other through the Court. Interrogatories may also be administered by a party to his opponent to obtain admissions from him to facilitate the proof of his own case. The party to whom interrogatories are administered must answer them in writing and on oath. Administering of interrogatories is to be encouraged, as it is a means of getting admissions and tends to shorten litigation. It is a valuable right of which a party should not lightly be deprived. The fact that the party has other means of proving the fact in question is not a ground for refusing interrogatories. In England, interrogatories are allowed for the following purposes : - (1) To ascertain the "nature" of the opponent's case or the material facts constituting his case. (2) To support his own case, either (a) directly, by obtaining admissions, or (b) indirectly, by impeaching or destroying the adversary's case. But a party is not entitled to administer interrogatories for obtaining discovery of facts which constitute exclusively the evidence of his adversary's case or title. He is not entitled to interrogate as to any confidential communications between his opponent and his legal advisors. Further, he is not entitled to execute interrogatories which would involve disclosures injurious to public interest. (Collected from Mulla's "the Code of Civil Procedure", Abridged Eleventh Edition by P. M. Bakshi ). In AIR 1972 SC 1302, Raj Narain v. Smt