Ghanashyam Das Tekriwal vs Smt. Jayanti Tiwari

Dr. A.K. Rath, J.—Assailing the order dated 21.2.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Panposh, Rourkela in C.S. No.45 of

2007, the instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the said order, learned trial court rejected the application

filed by the plaintiffs under Order 11, Rule 1 C.P.C. for a direction to the defendant nos.1 to 3 to answer the interrogatories.

The petitioner as well as opposite party nos.5 to 9 as plaintiffs instituted C.S. No.45 of 2007 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.),

Panposh, Rourkela for declaration of right, title and interest and permanent injunction impleading the opposite party nos.1 to 4 as defendants. The

plaintiffs filed an application under Order 11, Rule 1 C.P.C. for a direction to the opposite party nos.1 to 3 to answer the interrogatories put by

them. The same was objected by the defendants. By order dated 21.2.2009, learned trial court rejected the application on the ground that the

question sought for in the interrogatories can be very well put in cross-examination by the plaintiff.

Heard Mr. Anupam Das, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. G. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Piyush Kumar

Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.1 to 4.

The scope of Order 11, Rule 1 C.P.C. has been succinctly stated by this Court in Ganga Devi v. Krushna Prasad Sharma, Vol. XXXI

(1965) CLT 294. In paragraph 8 of the said report, it is held that :-

It would now be pertinent to examine the scope of Order 11, Civil Procedure Code. The main object of interrogatories is to save expenses by

enabling a party to obtain an admission from his opponent which makes the burden of proof easier. It would certainly not to be extended to prying

into the evidence wherewith the opposite party intends to support his case. The interrogatories are permissible with regard to matters which are

relevant to the facts directly in issue. In certain circumstances, however, they may be extended to other facts not directly in issue, but in connexion

with which existence, non-existence, nature or extent of right, liability or disability, asserted or denied in the suit or proceeding necessarily follows.

Sometimes it is used to show that the defence set up is unfounded. These, in substance, are generally the matters to which interrogatories should be

directed. Under Order 11, Civil Procedure Code, interrogatories can be administered in the same manner as is done in England for discovering the

facts in issue A.I.R. 1914 Cal. 767. In Attorney-General v. Gaskil, (1882) 20 Ch. D. 519, Cotton, L.J., observed-

The right to discovery remains the same, that is to say, a party has a right to interrogate with a view to obtaining an admission from his opponent of

everything which is material and relevant to the issue raised on the pleadings. It was said in argument that it is not discovery where the plaintiff

himself already knows the fact. But that is a mere play on the word ''discovery''. Discovery is not limited to giving the plaintiff a knowledge of that

which he does not know, but includes the getting an admission of anything which he is to prove on any issue which is raised between him and the

defendant. To show that the pleadings have raised issues and that therefore interrogatories should not be allowed is another fallacy. The object of

the pleadings is to ascertain what issues are. The object of the interrogatories is not to learn what the issues are but to see whether the party

intelligently can obtain an admission from his opponent which makes the burden of proof easier than it otherwise would have been.

Order 11, Rule 6 , Civil Procedure Code, enacts the nature of objections that can be advanced to the interrogatories. It says that 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

enquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage, or on any other ground, may be taken on affidavit in answer. To say that the question must

relate to definite, existing and relevant circumstances and must not be merely in the hope of discovering some flaw in the opponent''s case, or with

the object of filling a blank in the interrogatories.

In Sri Janaki Ballav Patnaik v. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. and others, 1988 (I) OLR-379, this Court held that administering of

interrogatories is to be encouraged, as it is a means of getting admission and tends to shorten litigation. It is a valuable right of which a party should

not lightly be deprived.

In Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi and another, AIR 1972 SC 1302, the apex Court held that questions that may be relevant

during cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. The only questions that are relevant as interrogatories are those relating to

any matters in question"". The interrogatories served must have reasonably close connection with ""matters in question"".

The right to administer interrogatories is neither absolute nor unqualified. A suit contemplates two sets of facts, i.e., (1) facta probanda (facts

constituting party''s case), and (2) facta probantia (facts constituting evidence). A party is entitled to know only facta probanda and not facta

probantia. Thus question sought for in the interrogatories can be put in cross-examination is per se no ground to reject the application under Order

11, Rule 1 C.P.C.

In view of the above, the order dated 21.2.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Panposh, Rourkela in C.S. No.45 of 2007 is

quashed. Learned trial court is directed to consider the interrogatories sought for by the plaintiffs in the light of the principles enunciated above and

fix time to answer the same. The petition is allowed.