C O M M O N O R D E R

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 29.08.2017 passed in I.A. Nos.126 to 128 of 2017 in W.O'S. No.33/2016 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri.

2. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the Original Suit.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the 1st respondent herein filed the suit in W.O.S. No.33 of 2016 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Hosur, seeking for relief of direction to the defendants to deliver the possession of the suit land and to set aside the sale deed dated 30.06.1995 under Registered Document No.5900 of 1995. Pending the suit, the 7th defendant has filed the said I.A. Nos. 126 to 128 of 2017 under Order 11, Rule 1 of C.P.C r/w. Section 57 of C.R.P to order the respondents/plaintiffs for delivery of interrogatories. Having heard both sides, the Trial Court dismissed the aforesaid application by its order dated 29.08.2017 holding that whether the cause of action for the suit and W.O.S. No.2 of 1998 are one and the same, can be determined only after filing the written statement and after full fledged trial and the petition is also pre-mature one and is not allowed at that stage. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal order, the petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the same.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate that the interrogatories were posed to narrow down the controversial issues between the parties. If the facts are admitted by the adverse party, no need to let in evidence during the course of trial. Further, the Trial Court has not formed any opinion to strike out the following interrogatories are prolix or unnecessary which are as follows:

“1. Do you admit Royathwari Patta under TD No.1399?

2. Do you admit the suit in O.S. No.2 of 1998 filed before this Court?

3. Do you admit that suit was dismissed for default?

4. Have you obtained any permission from the Court to bring fresh suit on the same cause of action?

5. Do you admit compromise in the S.A. No.1856 of

1986 dated 08.04.1991?

6. Do you admit that you have suppressed this compromise in S.A. No.1856 of 1986 done before the High Court of Madras?

7. Do you admit the Compromise Decree in O.S.

No.16 of 1986 of District Munsif Court, Hosur?

8. Do you admit the Vendors of the defendant to the document No.4677 of 1996, 5678 of 1995 and 5900 of 1995 were not added as parties to the suit?

9. Do you admit that your suit seeking relief to declare Sale Deed No.4677 of 1996, 5678 of 1995 and

5900 of 1995 as null and void is barred by limitation? 10. Do you admit that your suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C.

11. Do you admit possession of 20 cents as per compromise decree?

12. Do you admit Vendor of the defendant or the parties to the compromise to the second appeal No.1856 of

1996 dated 08.04.1991?

13. Do you admit Patta No.2173, 2174 and 2175 standing in the name of the defendants 2 and 3?

If the adverse party answers to the aforesaid interrogatories, it is materially important to draft the pleading in the event of filing of the Written statement. The dismissal of the application by the Trial Court without assigning any reason in the spirit of Order 11 C.P.C is clear abuse of Law as it is erroneous and illegal. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the order dated 29.08.2017 in I.A. Nos.

126 to 128 of 2017 in W.O.S. No.33 of 2016 passed by the Trial Court.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioners have filed the I.A. Nos. 126 to 128 of 2017 before the Trial Court seeking to order the respondents herein for delivery of interrogatories while the suit in W.O.S. No.33 of 2016 is pending for filing of written statement on the side of the defendants. Whether the cause of action for the suit in W.O.S. N