Defendants must provide complete and truthful responses to interrogatories; failure to comply with court orders justifies correction by higher courts.

1Interlocutories in relation to interrogatories have obstructed the trial. That was quite contrary to the intendment of a laudable objective of the salutary provision underlying O.11 R.11 of the Civil Procedure Code expediting the disposal of the suit.

2The suit filed by a company engaged in the manufacture of sophisticated electrical gadgets, made a monetary claim in relation to supplies made by it to the Electricity Boards in the Kerala and Karnataka States on the basis of transactions entered into between it and the defendants. The defendants disclaimed the liability. A replication on behalf of the plaintiff reiterated and expatiated the plaint averments.

3The parties filed large number of documents, Issues were framed in the suit. The plaintiff filed an application I. A. 1958 of 1982 for leave of the Court to deliver certain interrogatories for answers under O.11 R.1 CPC. The defendants resisted this application too. The resistance was upheld by the Trial Court. The application was accordingly dismissed.

4The plaintiff took up the matter before this Court, in CRP. No.108 of 1983. This Court disposed it of by order dated 27-11-1985.

5The Court noted that five issues did have relation to the interrogatories and consequently they were allowed in the case. The Court, however, hastened to clarify:
''However, it has to be observed that some of the interrogatories are couched in a complicated manner so that the defendants may have a genuine fear that they may be tapped by the answers that they may give to those interrogatories. This has to be avoided."
The order of the Trial Court declining leave to serve the interrogatories was accordingly set aside. The petition was remanded for fresh consideration by the lower court. The further direction reads:
"The lower court will grant leave to the plaintiff to raise interrogatories relating to "any matters in question" in this suit. In case the defendants satisfy the lower court that any of the interrogatories are not clearly worded or that they should be modified for any other valid reason, the lower court will direct the plaintiff to modify such interrogatories before granting leave. In case the defendant finds it difficult to answer any interrogatory directly, they will be permitted to file all records connected with those interrogatories as provided in O.11 R.2 CPC., so that the plaintiff and the court may find out the amounts, if any, actually received by the defendants."
There was a fresh bearing of the matter by the Trial Court. The Court directed the defendants - respondents to answer the interrogatories 1 to 9 in the petition. The plaintiff agreed that questions 10 to 13 need not be answered. The Court stressed that the defendant omitted to specify questions if answered will put them in the trap. Similarly there was no attempt on the part of the defendants to point out to the Court that any of the questions are not properly worded or that they must be modified for any other reason. These omissions are very significant in view of the directions contained in the order of the High Court. A contention about non availability of certain accounts consequent on a strike situation (the allegation was that some of the accounts were taken away by the striking employees) was found to be bereft of bona fides by the court below, and rightly so. Ultimately the answers were delivered by the defendants on 10-3-1986.

6On behalf of the plaintiff I. A. No. 713 of 1986 was filed complaining that the refusal of the defendants to answer interrogatories 4 and 8 was unjustified. That was sought to be met by a counter affidavit by a statement that it was not open to the plaintiff to canvass the truth of the answers in an application under O.11, R.11, and "the truth or sufficiency of the answers does not come up for consideration at all." The court below disposed of that application by its order dated 8-8-1986, with a cryptic observation, that the truthfulness of the contentions of the defendants could not be ques