The main legal point established is that interrogatories may be necessary for a fair trial and to reduce the cost of litigation, and the court should consider the reasonable connection of interrogatories with the matter in question.

JUDGMENT :

S. Panda, J. - In this writ application, challenge has been made to the order dated 20th of May, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela, in Civil Suit No. 60 of 2005 rejecting an application filed by the Petitioners under Order 11, Rule 1, CPC to put the interrogatories put by him to be answered by the Plaintiff as those interrogatories might be relevant for the purpose of cross-examination of the witnesses, but not for the purpose of the provision of Order 11, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure

2. Defendants 1 to 7 are the Petitioners and the facts leading to this case are as follows:

Opposite party No. 1 as the Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the document dated 16.1.2004, the purported Will executed by Smt. Dhaneswari Dwibedi, the mother of the Plaintiff and the Defendants was void and not enforceable and also not executed by her and further to declare that the mutation case pending before the Tahasildar, rourkela on the basis of the said purported Will was illegal and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper. As per his pleadings in the plaint, he stated that the disputed land was Bhogra land of Bidyadhar Dwibedi and after his death, Defendant No. 7 being the eldest son became the village Headman and he effected partition of the joint family property including the Bhogra land by virtue of a registered document dated 8.7.1967 and the said registered partition deed was a nominal document and never acted upon and a share was allotted to late Dhaneswari Dwibedi in the said partition deed and by virtue of that allotment Dhaneswari bequeathed Ac.0.195 decimals which was Bhogra land previously in favour of Defendants 1,2 and the deceased son of Dibya Sankar Dwibedi by virtue of a registered Will in the year 2004 and as Dhaneswari was old and suffering from various diseases, taking advantage thereof, Defendant No. 1 took her to his home on the pretext of family ceremony and obtained a registered Will from her which came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff when mutation proceeding was started before the Tahasildar, Rourkela and as the property bequeathed by Dhaneswari as Bhogra land, the said land did not belong to her and the Will be declared as void and in the plaint, the Plaintiff also pleaded many general facts unconnected with the scope and ambit of the suit for which the Defendants filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC to delete those facts. The Defendants' application was rejected by the trial court. Against the same, they preferred W.P. (C) No. 9882 of 2007 which was disposed of by this Court directing the trial court to delete the irrelevant facts.

The Defendants filed their written-statement thereafter specifically stating therein that the partition was effected in the year 1967 and it was not nominal and the parties are possessing the land as per the shares allotted to them and dealing with the property in their own right and the share allotted to Dhaneswari Dwibedi was never objected to by anybody at the time of the partition or during the current Settlement Operation. As such, the land was recorded in the names of the respective parties as per the allotment made in the said partition. Hence, the partition deed was valid for all purposes and was acted upon. While the matter stood thus, the Defendants filed an application under Order 11, Rule 1, CPC to put certain interrogatories to the Plaintiff and in that interrogatories, they specifically formulated question Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 regarding the registered partition deed and shares allotted in favour of the parties and also regarding dealing with the properties by the parties independently thereafter and whether the income derived from the said property being shown in the income tax return or not.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that since the aforesaid questions are necessary to be answered for proper adjudication of the suit, the Petitioners filed the application seeking leave of the court.