INTERROGATORIES UNDER ORDER 11 RULE 1 OF THE CPC MUST BE RELEVANT TO MATTERS IN QUESTION AND NOT SEEK TO DISCOVER FACTS CONSTITUTING EXCLUSIVELY THE EVIDENCE OF THE ADVERSARY'S CASE.

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by Smt. Satya Devi, hereinafter described as "the petitioner", directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur, dated 7.5.1998. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff and directed the petitioner to file reply to the interrogatories.

2. The relevant facts are that respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for declaration claiming 1/4th share from the properties in dispute. It was asserted that the said share is on the basis of inheritance. The said suit was contested by others including the petitioner. Plea had been raised that Maya Devi had left a Will dated 6.11.1990 in favour of the husband of the petitioner and respondents No. 9 and 10 and that the Wills dated 11.10.1990 and 12.10.1990 were cancelled. Issues were framed and the parties led evidence. The case was fixed for evidence in rebuttal. At that stage, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code") for delivering interrogatories to be answered by the petitioner. It was asserted that in order to save the time of the court and delay, permission should be granted to deliver the interrogatories to the defendant-petitioner. The said application was contested and the learned trial Court had passed the following order:-

"As per arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties on application under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC, since the interrogatory related to the matter in question in the suit and it will save the time of the court as well as the parties, so application dated 10.3.1998 is allowed. Defendant is directed to file the reply of the Interrogatory on 9.5.1998. 7.5.1998, Sd/- CJJD FZR."

Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed. Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code reads as under:-

"1. 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, and such interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of such person is required to answer: Provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same party without an order for the purpose: Provided also that interrogatories which do no relate to any matters in question in the suit shall deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness."

3 The purpose of Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code is that a party is entitled to know the nature of the opponents case. He must know beforehand as to what he is to meet at the hearing. Sometimes the plaint and the written statement do not sufficiently disclose the nature of the parties, case. Therefore, the interrogatories are permitted to be served to elucidate the facts and to know the exact nature of the litigation from an unscrupulous party. The said purpose has been considered by the Supreme Court. In the decision rendered in the case of Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1302, it was held that the questions that may be relevant during cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. They must be closely connected with the matter in question. In paragraph 27 of the judgment, the Supreme Court concluded as under:-

"Questions that may be relevant during cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. The only questions that are relevant as interrogatories are those relating to "any matters in question". The interrogatories served must have reasonably close connection with "matters in question." Viewed thus, interrogatories 1 to 18 as well as 31 must be held to be irrelevant."

The same question came up for consideration before the Delhi High Court in the case of Rajasthan Golden Transport