Jojy George Koduvath.

Introduction.

Interrogatories are meant to be used liberally. The aim is to shorten the litigation. But, it is not expected to be used with a blind-eye. Before opening the tool-box of Order 11, we must be thorough with the legal propositions. 

Relevant provisions of CPC

• “O.11.1. 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 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.

• O.11.2. Particular interrogatories to be submitted – On an application for leave to deliver interrogatories, the particular interrogatories proposed to be delivered shall be submitted to the Court (and that Court shall decide within seven days from the day of filing of the said application). In deciding upon such application, the Court shall take into account any offer, which may be made by the party sought to be interrogated to deliver particulars, or to make admissions, or to produce documents relating to the matters in question, or any of them, and leave shall be given as to such only of the interrogatories submitted as the Court shall consider necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs.”

• O.11. R.6 Objections to interrogatories by answer – Any objection to answering any interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit, or that the matters inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage, 1[or on the ground of privilege or any other ground], may be taken in the affidavit in answer.

• O.11. R.7 Setting aside and striking out interrogatories – Any interrogatories may be set aside on the ground that they have been exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously, or struck out on the ground that they are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous: and any application for this purpose may be made within seven days after service of the interrogatories.

Interrogatories & Discretion of Court

Issuance of interrogatories is always a matter of discretion of the Court.

• Poonam Mansharamani v. Ajit Mansharamani, ILR 2016 MP 2999, 2016-1 MPHC 23, 2016-1 MPLJ 366, 2016 3 RCR(Civil) 544;
• Sharadamma v. Sharad G. Jada v, AIR 2005 Kar  445.
• G.  Nanchil Kumaran v. Govindasamy Reddiar, 1999 3 Mad LJ 660;
• Satya Devi v. Kanta Rani, 1999-123 PLR 724; 1999-1 RCR(Civ) 71;
• Rajasthan Golden Transport Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Avon Footwear Industries Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1986 Delhi 286.
• Golden Transport Co. Ltd. v. Avon F.I. Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1984 Del. 286.
• Y. Venkateswara Rao v. K. Nagamma and another, AIR  1972 Mysore  87;

Used liberally, if it shortens litigation

1. Interrogatories are used liberally whenever it can shorten the litigation

• Transport Corporation of India Ltd.  v. Reserve Bank of India, AIR  2018-2 (Del)(R) 585; 2017 4 CivCC 612; 2017 243 DLT 168;
• Hungama Digital Media Entertainment Pvt.  Ltd.  v. DB Mobile Entertainment, 2016-2 AD 69; 2015 4 Civ CC 467; 2015-223 DLT 85; 2015-64 PTC 280;
• Canara Bank v. Rajiv Tyagi & Associates, 2010-166 DLT 523; ILR 2010-3 (Del) 270,
• Smt. Sharada Dhir v. Ashok Kumar Mukhija, AIR 2003 Del. 288, 2002-99 DLT 350.
• Bhakta Charan Mallik v. Nataorar Mallik, AIR 1991 Ori 319,
• A.K. Aggarwal v. Shunti Devi 1996 Rajdhani LR 60,

2. Courts will not disallow interrogatories merely because the party interrogating has other means of proving the facts in question.

• Hungama Digital Media Entertainment Pvt.  Ltd.  v. DB Mobile Entertainment, 2016-2 AD 69; 2015 4 Civ CC 467; 2015-223 DLT 85; 2015-64 PTC 280;
• Sharda Dhir v. Ashok Kumar Makhija, AIR 2003 Del. 288, 2002-99 DLT 350.

Leave of Court is Necessary

1. Leave is necessary to interrogate under Order XI rule 1 CPC.  

• Sreejith Varma v. Poonjar Koyikkal Royal Family Trust, 2020-4 KHC 363; 2020-4 KLT 792;  
• Omega Crown v. Thomson, 2012 (3) KLT 573

2. The touch-stone for leave is whether the interrogatories are necessary for fairly disposing of the suit or saving costs; and nothing else.

• Sreejith Varma v. Poonjar Koyikkal Royal Family Trust, 2020-4 KHC 363; 2020-4 KLT 792;    

3. A separate application for “leave” need not be filed, for interrogation under Order XI rule 1 CPC.

• Omega Crown v. Thomson, 2012 (3) KLT 573  

4. Interrogatories under Order XI rule 1 CPC can be administered by one plaintiff to another plaintiff, or by one defendant to another defendant.

• Provided there is some question or issue between them in the suit action or proceeding. Reddys Laboratories Limited v. Y. Srinivasa Rao, 2009 6 ALT 252.

When Court Allows Interrogatories

1. When the object of interrogation under Order XI rule 1 CPC is shortening proceedings and save expenses and time.  

• P. Balan v. Central Bank of India, AIR 2000 Ker 24,
• G.  Nanchil Kumaran v. Govindasamy Reddiar, 1999-3 Mad LJ 660;
• Satya Devi v. Kanta Rani, 1999-123 PLR 724; 1999-1 RCR(Civ) 71;
• Rajasthan Golden Transport Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Avon Footwear Industries Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1986 Delhi 286.
• Thakur Prasad v. Md. Sohayal, AIR 1977 Pat 233,
• Ganga Devi v. Krishna Prasad Sharma, AIR 1967 Ori 194,

2. It is to know the nature of the opponents case and what case one has to meet at the hearing.  

• Hungama Digital Media Entertainment Pvt.  Ltd.  v. DB Mobile Entertainment, 2016-2 AD 69; 2015 4 Civ CC 467; 2015-223 DLT 85; 2015-64 PTC 280;
• Sharda Dhir v. Ashok Kumar Makhija, AIR 2003 Del. 288, 2002-99 DLT 350.
• PS  Rajan v. KP  John, ILR 2003-3 Ker 477, KHC 2003 0 348,
• Bhakta Charan Mallik v. Nataorar Mallik, AIR 1991 Ori 319,  
• G.  Nanchil Kumaran v. Govindasamy Reddiar, 1999 3 Mad LJ 660;
• Nishi Prem v. Javed Akhtar, AIR 1998 Bom 222, Satya Devi v. Kanta Rani, 1999-123 PLR 724; 1999-1 RCR(Civ) 710;
• Janaki Ballav Patnaik v. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd, AIR 1989 Ori 216.

3. It is for facilitating proof of the case and to save the costs.

• Canara Bank v. Rajiv Tyagi & Associates, 2010-166 DLT 523; ILR 2010-3 (Del) 270

4. It is also to discover new facts which are in the special knowledge of the opposite party. 

• Charan Inderpal Singh v. Sh.  Gurpal Sing,ILR 2008-17 Del 1994.

5. Also to discover facts from his opponent in order to facilitate the proof of his own case.      

• Poonam Mansharamani v. Ajit Mansharamani, ILR 2016 MP 2999, 2016-1 MPHC 23, 2016-1 MPLJ 366, 2016 3 RCR(Civil) 544.
• Rajasthan Golden Transport Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Avon F.I. Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1986 Del. 286;
• G.  Nanchil Kumaran v. Govindasamy Reddiar, 1999 3 Mad LJ 660

6. Also to help proving his case or to destroying the case of the adversary.

• P. Balan v. Central Bank of India, Calicut, AIR 2000 Ker 24,
• A.K. Aggarwal v. Shunti Devi 1996 Rajdhani LR 60,

7. Also to obtain admissions of any facts which he has to prove on any issue.  

• Transport Corporation of India Ltd v. Reserve Bank of India: 2018-2 AIR(Del)(R) 585; 2017 4 CivCC 612; 2017 – 243 DLT 168.
• Thakur Prasad v. Md. Sohayal, AIR 1977 Pat 233,
• Nishi Prem v. JavedAkhtar, AIR 1988 Bom 222 .

No rule – directing to limit to pleadings

1. There is no rule that restricts a party to limit the interrogatories to the pleadings.

• Gopalan A. M.  v. Umasankar, ILR  2015-4 Ker 123, 2015-3 KerLJ 845 .

2. The Court will be liberal as to allowing leave for interrogate, at the initial stage; but not so once the evidence of the opposite party is over.

• Govind Narayan v. Nagendra Nagda: LAWS(RAJ) 2017 9 43,RAJLW 2017 4 3309

3. The interrogatories could be delivered with regard to title.

• RP Tiwari v. Smt. Soluchna Choudhary, 2000 1 MPHT 481
• Nishi Prem v. Javed Akhtar : AIR 1988  Bom 222.

4. Parties are not entitled to administer interrogatories for obtaining discoveries of facts which constitute evidence of its adversary’s case or title.

• Nishi Prem v. Javed Akhtar : AIR 1988  Bom 222

Court is bound to consider necessity and propriety

1. Court has to consider from the touch-stone whether the interrogatories are necessary for fairly disposing of the suit or saving costs.

• G.  Nanchil Kumaran v. Govindasamy Reddiar, 1999-3 Mad LJ 660;
• Sreejith Varma v. Poonjar Koyikkal Royal Family Trust, 2020-4 KHC 363; 2020-4 KLT 792.

2. Courts go into the merits of the interrogatories and examine necessity and propriety.

• Kishorilal Babulal v. Ramlal, AIR 2013 Bom 19;2013-1 AIR Bom (R) 830; 2013 6 AllMR 892; 2014 1 CivCC 727; 2014 1 MhLJ 782.

3. The Court  considers the nature of the claim, the necessity shown.

• GM Pens International v. Ramesh Kumar Jain, 2009 0 Supreme(Mad) 3300.

When Court rejects

1. Court rejects interrogatories if they are irrelevant or not bona fide.  

• G.  Nanchil Kumaran v. Govindasamy Reddiar, 1999 3 Mad LJ 660;
• GM Pens International v. Ramesh Kumar Jain, 2009 0 Supreme(Mad) 3300

2. Court will not allow interrogatories if they do not relate to matters in question or points in issue.  

• Job Jose v. Sudharman, 2018-3 Ker LT 174,
• Bhavans Vidya Mandir v. Shibu; 2017-1 Ker LT 726, KHC 2017-1 498, ILR  2017- 1 Ker 1088, 
• Poonam Mansharamani v. Ajit Mansharamani, ILR 2016 MP 2999, 2016-1 MPHC 23, 2016-1 MPLJ 366.
• Eldho Kuruvilla v. K. G.  Abraham, 2012-3 Ker LJ 228, 2012 KHC 2795;
• P. Balan v. Central Bank of India, Calicut  AIR 2000 Ker  24, 
• G.  Nanchil Kumaran v. Govindasamy Reddiar, 1999-3 Mad LJ 660;
• Bhakta Charan Mallik v. Nataorar Mallik, 1991 AIROri 319 ,
• Rajasthan Golden Transport Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Avon F.I. Pvt. Ltd, AIR 1986 Del 286;
• Ashok Kumar v. Dalmia Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research, AIR 1986 Ori 42,
• Ganga Devi v. Krishna Prasad Sharma, AIR 1967 Ori 194;
• Nishi Prem v. JavedAkhtar, AIR 1988 Bom 222.
• Delhi Vansapati Syndicate v. K.C. Chawala, AIR 1983 J& K 65;
• Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi AIR 1972 SC 1302 – 1972 3 SCR 841;
• Thakur Prasad v. Md. Sohayal, AIR 1977 Pat 233,

3. Interrogatories will not be allowed if they are ‘fishing’ in nature.

• AFL Developers v. Veena Trivedi, AIR 2000 Del 354,
• Anjulika Vinod Dewan v. Vijay Laxmi Chauhan, 2008-102 DRJ 755;
• Rajasthan Golden Transport Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Avon F.I. Pvt. Ltd, AIR 1986 Del 286;
• G.  Nanchil Kumaran v. Govindasamy Reddiar, 1999-3 Mad LJ 660

4. Court will reject interrogatories if they are unreasonable, vexatious, prolix, redundant, oppressive or scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide. Interrogatories which do not relate to the issue and matters in question shall be deemed to be irrelevant.

• Transport Corporation of India Ltd.  v.  Reserve Bank of India 2018-2 AIR(Del)(R) 585; 2017 4 CivCC 612; 2017 – 243 DLT 168;  
• Canara Bank v. Rajiv Tyagi & Associates , 2010-166 DLT 523
• G.  Nanchil Kumaran v. Govindasamy Reddiar, 1999 3 Mad LJ 660;
• Nishi Prem v. Javed Akhtar and Ors., A.I.R. 1998 Bom 222;
• Satya Devi v. Kanta Rani, 1999-123 PLR 724; 1999-1 RCR (Civ) 71.

5. Court will not allow interrogatories if questions therein go at par with the questions that can be put in cross examination

• Charan Inderpal Singh v. Sh.  Gurpal Sing, ILR 2008-17 Del 1994.
• G.  Nanchil Kumaran v. Govindasamy Reddiar, 1999 3 Mad LJ 660.
• Bhakta Charan Mallik v. Nataorar Mallik, 1991 AIR Ori 319.
• Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi, 1972 3 SCR 841 ,
• Rajasthan Golden Transport Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Avon F.I. Pvt. Ltd, AIR 1986 (Del) 286.

6. If the plaint and written statement would sufficiently disclose the nature of the respective parties’ case, then the party may not be permitted to administer the interrogatories.

• G.  Nanchil Kumaran v. Govindasamy Reddiar, 1999 3 Mad LJ 660;
• Satya Devi v. Kanta Rani, 1999-123 PLR 724; 1999-1 RCR(Civ) 710;
• Nishi Prem v. Javed Akhtar, AIR 1998 Bom 222

7. Interrogatories will not be allowed if it meant to get answers – made by a party in its pleadings.

• CharanInderpal Singh v. Sh.  Gurpal Sing, ILR 2008-17 Del 1994.

8. If made to cause prejudice to the opposite party. Not a short cut method to prove the cases of the party.

• GM Pens International v. Ramesh Kumar Jain, 2009 0 Supreme(Mad) 3300;

9. If  facts which constitute exclusively the evidence of the other side, so that it may enable unscrupulous parties to tamper with the witnesses and to manufacture evidence and so shape his case as to defeat justice.

• Nishi Prem v. Javed Akhtar, AIR 1998 Bom 222;
• Satya Devi v. Kanta Rani, 1999-123 PLR 724; 1999-1 RCR(Civ) 71;
• Janaki Ballav Patnaik v. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. AIR 1989 Ori 216

10. If discovery constitute exclusively the evidence of his adversary’s case or title.  

• Nishi Prem v. Javed Akhtar and Ors., AIR 1998 Bom 222;
• Satya Devi v. Kanta Rani, 1999-123 PLR 724; 1999-1 RCR(Civ) 71;
• Ram Pravesh Rai Estate (P) Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, 2016-1 BBCJ 50 (Patna).

11. If to enable the applicant to know as to how his opponent is going to prove his case.

• Shrivallabh v. Ibrahimkhan, 2015-6 AllMR 321; 2015-6 BomCR 525; 2015-2 CivCC 741; 2015-2 MhLJ 175

12. If answers in itself or suggestive of answers.

• Charan Inderpal Singh v. Sh.  Gurpal Sing, ILR 2008-17 Del 1994.

13. If relates to any confidential communication between his opponent and his legal adviser.

• Ram Pravesh Rai Estate (P) Ltd.  v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, 2016-1 BBCJ 50 (Patna)  

14. If about derivation of title.

• Laws (Ker) 2010-9-115

15. If not with intend to support the evidence the opposite party.

• Ganga Devi v. Krishna Prasad Sharma, AIR 1967 Ori 194,

16. If Question of law.  (Interrogatories are confined exclusively to evidence. )

• Nishi Prem v. Javed Akhtar, AIR 1988 Bom 222;
• Delhi Vansapati Syndicate v. K.C. Chawala, AIR 1983 J& K 65

17. If disclosure is injurious to public interest.

• Ram Pravesh Rai Estate (P) Ltd.  v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, 2016 1 BBCJ 50 (Patna)

18. Court cannot direct a party to answer interrogatories in a particular manner to suit applicant’s convenience.

• Tata Iron And Steel Co. v. Rajarishi Exports, AIR 1978 Ori 179,
• Synergy Homes Ltd.  v. Joshy John, 2011-4 KHC 512.

---

---