Applications for discovery must relate to relevant issues in the suit; irrelevant inquiries are an abuse of court process.

JUDGMENT

Confronted with Ext P10 order passed in IA No.8/2022 in OS No.30/2019 by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Payyannur, the plaintiffs in the suit have filed the original petition. The respondents are the defendants in the suit.

2. The thumbnail sketch of the background facts leading to Ext P10 order are: the petitioners have filed the above suit, for a decree for partition. The respondents 1 to 4 have filed Exts P2 to P5 written statements opposing the suit. The petitioners had earlier filed IA No.822/2019 (Ext P6) for the appointment of a receiver. The application was opposed by the first respondent through Ext P7 counter affidavit. Later, the petitioners filed IA No.8/2022 (Ext P8) under Order 11 Rules 11 and 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, ‘Code’) to direct the respondents to furnish certain information. The said application was also objected to by the respondents 1 and 6 to 9 by filing Exts P9 written objection. The court below, by the impugned Ext P10 order, has dismissed Ext P8 application. By Ext P11 judgment, this Court has directed the expeditious disposal of the suit. Ext P10 is palpably wrong and erroneous. Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri.K.R Arun Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on admission. 4. Is there any illegality in Ext.P10 order?

5. The suit is filed for partition. The respondents have opposed the suit cardinally on the ground that the property is not partible.

6. At the instance of the third respondent, this Court, by Ext.P11 judgment, has directed the suit to be disposed of within one year from 16.12.2021. The period has already lapsed.

7. At the trial stage, the petitioners filed Ext.P8 application under Order 11 of the Code to direct the respondents to furnish information about the properties acquired by them out of the common nucleus of the family properties because the information is beyond their knowledge. The respondents opposed the application, inter alia , contending that the information and documents sought are irrelevant for the determination of the suit; instead, the application is filed to harass them.

8. The court below dismissed the application by the impugned Ext.P10 order, holding that the details sought are irrelevant, that the petitioners can get the information from other sources and that the application is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. 9. Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:

“30. Power to order discovery and the like.— Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may, at any time, either of its own motion or on the application of any party,—

(a) make such orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to the delivery and answering of interrogatories, the admission of documents and facts, and the discovery, inspection, production, impounding and return of documents or other material objects producible as evidence;

(b) issue summonses to persons whose attendance is required either to give evidence or to produce documents or such other objects as aforesaid;

(c) order any fact to be proved by affidavit”.

10. Rules 1 and 12 of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure , which are germane to the instant case, read thus:

“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 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”.

12. Application for discovery of d