CR No.5420 of 2007 (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

CR No.5420 of 2007

Date of decision: 15.11.2007.

M/s.Mukesh Kumar Rajesh Kumar

C/o Ganesh Flour Mills,Ludhiana and others

... Petitioners

Versus

Ashok Kumar

... Respondent

Present:

Mr. Swarn Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioners.

--

PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral):

This revision is directed against the order dated 29.09.2007

passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, rejecting the

application of the petitioner-defendants for leave to serve the interrogatories

and a direction has been issued to the petitioner-defendants to file the

written statement.

The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession and

recovery against the petitioner-defendants wherein the defendants were

served through summons and were required to file the written statement.

Instead of filing the written statement, an application came to be made

under order 11 Rule 1 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave

CR No.5420 of 2007 (2)

of the Court to serve the interrogatories upon the plaintiff for his answer

allegedly to enable the petitioner-defendants to file their effective written

statement.

The prayer of the petitioner-defendants was seriously opposed

by the plaintiff on various grounds.

The learned trial Court vide the impugned order has rejected

the application, primarily, on the ground that the defendant in the case is yet

to file the written statement and instead of filing the written statement, he

has made this application which can be considered only after the written

statement is filed and consequently, directed the petitioner-defendants to file

the written statement.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length.

Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the

discovery by interrogatories, which reads as under:-

“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

persons is required to answer:

Provided that no party shall deliver more than one

CR No.5420 of 2007 (3)

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.”

Under this provision, in any suit, any of the parties i.e. the

plaintiff or the defendant may with the leave of the Court deliver

interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties or any

one or more of such parties. Proviso I to the rule prohibits serving of more

than one set of interrogatories to the same party without an order of the

Court in this respect. The Second Proviso to Rule 1 of Order 11 of the

Code of Civil Procedure speaks of relevancy of interrogatories to the

matters in question. Both these provisios regulate the right contemplated by

Rule 1 of Order 11 of CPC. Under 2^nd proviso, the interrogatories which do

not relate to any matters in question shall be deemed irrelevant. Therefore,

what is significant is the relevancy of the proposed interrogatories to the

questions or the matters in issue. It's natural corollary is that at the time of

grant of leave to serve interrogatories, at least, the Court should be in a

position to know the matter in question or controversy between the

litigating parties. It is only thereafter the Court is able to decide the

question of relev