Wijesekere V. Eastern Bank

1941 Present: Wijeyewardene and Nihill JJ

WIJESEKERE v. EASTERN BANK.

37-D. C. Colombo, 11,188.

Interrogatory-Legitimate use of interrogat07'ies-Proof of facts relevant to a fact in issue-Not allowed to establish facts otherwise relevant,

The legitimate use of interrogatories is to obtain for the party interrogating admissions of fact relevant to a fact in issue or leading up to a matter in issue.

If the object of serving interrogatories is to obtain facts which it is not incumbent upon the party interrogating to prove in order to establish his case but which are otherwise relevant such interrogatories should not be allowed.

APPEAL from an order of the District Judge of Colombo.

H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him. E. F. N. Gratiaen), for defendant, appellant.

N. Nadarajah, for plaintiff, respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

November 14, 1941. NlHILL J.

This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the District Judge of Colombo dated February 17, 1941 which under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code directed the Manager of the Eastern Bank in Colombo to answer certain interrogatories.

The matter arose in this way. The respondent to this appeal, a business man trading in Colombo, sued the appellant-the Eastern Bank for damages, inter alia, by reason of an alleged defamatory letter written at Baghdad by the Manager of the Bank's Baghdad Branch to a merchant in that city. The Bank filed answer denying liability and the trial was fixed for February 11, 1941. On January 22, 1941, interrogatories were served on the Bank's Manager in Colombo. To three of these he objected and on February 1, 1941, he filed an affidavit containing his reasons.

The interrogatories to which he took objection were as follows':-

" (u) Did the Colombo Branch of the defendant Bank send to the Baghdad Branch on or about the 24th of July, 1939, the following message:

EAST BANK. BAGHDAD.

TXDYE. YDUDU. UFSBA. AHXAP. BROAG. THUAA. TRIUO. IPTOI

Signed illegibly.

(b) Was this message sent in Code?

(c) If so, state what code was used.

(d) State how the message would read in ordinary language when it is decoded.

"5 (a) Did the Baghdad Branch of the defendant Bank instruct or advise the Colombo Branch in or about July, 1939, to open a letter of credit to plaintiff ?

(b), If so, what was the date on which the instructions or advice to open the said letter of credit was received in Colombo?

(c) Did the Colombo Branch fail to advise the plaintiff of this letter of credit?

(d) Did the Colombo Branch telegraph to the Baghdad Branch in reply?

(e) Was the reply to the effect that the plaintiff was worthless and that the Colombo Branch was not advising plaintiff of the letter of credit?

(f) If the answer to interrogatory No.5 (e) is in the negative, state what the ' answer was.

6. (a) 9n whose behalf in Baghdad was the letter of credit referred to in the interrogatory, No. 5 opened?

(b) Was your reply referred to in interrogatories No.5 (c) and (d) and intended to be communicated to that person?

(c) Was the reply" in fact so communicated? "

The learned District Judge in making his order directing the appellant to answer these interrogatories did so on the grounds that they were relevant as being links in the chain of the plaintiff's evidence which may help him to substantiate his case and he held that they had been put bona fide for the purposes of the action. These are good reasons in Law for the admission of the interrogatories provided the learned District Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion he did. What is really at issue between the parties to this appeal is whether the answers, if supplied, would Provide in fact material which the plaintiff must have' in order to prove his case. In order to consider this issue it will be best first to look at the plaint. The plaintiff has alleged three causes of

action but it is with the second only that we are concerned, for it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document