JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)

st The appellant / applicant / 1 defendant has preferred this Original Side Appeal against the Order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the learned Judge in Application No.4299 of 2022 in Application No.2713 of 2022 in C.S.No.185 of 2014.

2. It is the case of the appellant that the first respondent instituted the aforesaid suit viz., C.S.No.185 of 2014 against the appellant and the respondents 2 to 4 herein seeking permanent injunction restraining them and their parties from publishing/ republishing, carrying out any reports or articles or telecasts or repeat telecasts or programs or debates or any discussion or reporting or publishing in any other manner, any other matter of any kind directly or indirectly pertaining to the alleged report of the third defendant or any other matter related to the said alleged statement and / or any news content relating to the plaintiff to acts of betting, spot fixing and match fixing of cricket matches or in any manner insinuating about the integrity and honesty of the plaintiff as a cricketer except the publication or news of the exact judicial order, if any, passed by this Court; and to pass a decree of damages in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 4 jointly and severally, for an amount of Rs.100 Crores or for any higher amount as this court may be pleased to determine; and to award costs. 3.This Court, by order dated 08.09.2021 framed issues for consideration of the suit. When the suit was pending, the first respondent / plaintiff filed an application in Application No.2713 of 2022 seeking leave of this Court to deliver interrogatories to the appellant / first defendant to answer and to issue Sub-Poena in the above suit. This Court, by order dated

22.07.2022, allowed the said application as prayed for.

4.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Judge, the first defendant / appellant herein filed an Application in Application No.4299 of 2022 under Order XI Rule 7 of CPC seeking to set aside the interrogatories delivered to them, on the ground of illegality and not exhibited bonafide. It was also stated therein that the interrogatories are in the nature of cross examination and an attempt to prepare the first respondent's chief examination. This Court, after considering the submissions, observed that the interrogatories are raised only with a view to gather further information on the basis of the allegations made in the written statement and that the pleadings must contain material facts. It was further observed that based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira [2012 5 SCC 370], adherence to Section 30 CPC will help in ascertaining the proof. Observing so, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 11.11.2022. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the applicant / first defendant.

5.The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order shows total non-appreciation of the issue on hand. According to him, the learned Judge has allowed the interrogatories without weighing it on the balance of unreasonableness, vexatiousness, prolixity, oppression etc., thereby causing prejudice to the appellant. The learned counsel further submitted that the order has resulted in miscarriage of justice to the appellant by failure of due process which is the main ingredient of fair disposal of the suit. That apart, it is submitted that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the provisions of Order XI Rule 7 of CPC by holding that the appellant cannot ask this Court to set aside its own order dated 22.07.2022; that the learned Judge has also failed to appreciate the objections raised by the appellant that interrogatories delivered amounted to cross examination of the first defendant before the plaintiff. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the learned Judge has erred in accepting the r