A.No.4299 of 2022

A.No.4299 of 2022

in

C.S.No.185 of 2014

Reserved on

: 27.10.2022

Pronounced on

: 11.11.2022

G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

This application has been filed to allow the set aside application

against the interrogatories delivered to the first defendant in A.No.2713 of

2022 as per the order dated 22.07.2022.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the first

respondent filed Application in A.No.2713 of 2022 under Order XIV Rule 8

of O.S. Rules r/w Order XI Rule 1 and 2(1) r/w Section 30 and 151 of CPC

seeking leave to the first respondent/plaintiff to deliver the interrogatories

annexed to the application to answer and to issue subpoena to the applicant.

Interrogatories are numbered 1 to 17. The schedule was annexed with the

application. This application was allowed on 22.07.2022 without properly

considering the objections raised by the applicant. The interrogatories are

objected on the ground of illegality and not exhibited bonafide. The motive of

1/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.No.4299 of 2022

the first respondent/plaintiff to take interrogatories against the applicant is

that the first respondent/plaintiff wanted to know before hand the evidence

against him and tamper with the evidence. There is a threat of instituting

proceedings as well, which is not permissible. One has to prove his own case.

The claim of effective adjudication of the right of the parties is only a smoke

screen. The interrogatories are a disguised cross examination and naked

attempt by the first respondent to obtain all evidences supporting applicant's

action. The interrogatories in the nature of cross examination is

impermissible under CPC or any other law. It is an attempt to prepare the

first respondent's Chief examination. It provides undue advantage to the first

respondent and serious prejudice to the applicant. Therefore, this application

has to be allowed and order of granting leave to the interrogatories to the

applicant in Application No.2713 of 2022 has to be set aside.

3. In support of his submissions, he relied on the following

Judgments:-

(i)“G.Nanchil Kumaran Vs. Govindasamy Reddiar” reported in

[MANU/TN/0859/1999] reads as follows,

“...

2/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.No.4299 of 2022

41. The power to grant leave for interrogatories is not meant

to be confined within narrow technical limits. It should be

used liberally whenever it can shorten litigation and serve the

interest of justice. However, this can be exercised only within

certain limits. The power to order interrogatories to be served

and answer should be used with considerable care and

caution, so that it is not abused by any party. A party is

entitled to interrogate his opponent with a view to ascertain

what case he has to meet and the facts relied on and to limit

the generality of the pleadings and find out what is really in

issue.

42. At the same time, the interrogatories must be confined to

facts which are relevant to the matters in question in the suit.

Interrogatories which are really in nature of cross-

examination cannot be allowed.

...

48. In the present case, as I indicated earlier, there is no

discussion in the impugned order as to how the said 17

questions contained in the interrogatories can be said to

relate to the facts that exclusively constitute the evidence of

the plaintiff's case and to the matters in question. It is also

noticed that there is no reference in the impugned order with

regard to the objection raised by the petitioner, the defendant

that the interrogatories are scandalous, irrelevant and mala

3/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.No.4299 of 2022

fide and as such, these objections have not been dealt with by

the trial court in the impugned order.”

(ii)“Nishi Prem VS. Javed Akhtar and Ors” reported in

[MANU/MH/0342/1988] reads as follows:

“....

13. We wish to