AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J., Pigot, O''Kinbaly, Macpherson, and Ghose, JJ.—We think that when the Court, under the provisions of Section 121 of the Civil Procedure Code, gives leave to one of the parties to deliver interrogatories, it does not thereby make "an order to answer interrogatories" under Chapter X, within the meaning of Section 136. The grant of leave to one party to deliver interrogatories to another does not amount to an order requiring the other party to answer them; that party may perhaps have good ground for refusing to answer them or some of them (Section 125). The order to answer interrogatories contemplated by Section 136, upon failure to comply with which the party in default is liable to have his defence struck out, is an order made u/s 127 upon application made by the party interrogating.
We think the case of Lalla Dabee Pershad v. Santo Pershad ILR Gal. 505 was wrongly decided, and that the omission to answer interrogatories delivered after leave granted u/s 121 does not render the party so omitting to answer liable to have his defence struck out u/s 136.