M/S Asset Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. (M/S Acre Ltd.) vs Harjeet S. Sabharwal

R.K.Gauba, J

The petitioner is the defendant in the civil suit (Civil Suit No.571/2012) instituted by the respondent seeking recovery of Rs. 4,64,418/- claimed as dues for the services rendered in the past. The respondent (the plaintiff) had moved an application under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking leave of the trial judge for discovery by interrogatories to be answered by the petitioner (the defendant). By order dated 06.10.2015, the permission to deliver interrogatories was granted to the plaintiff and the defendant was called upon to reply to the interrogatories on oath on the date next fixed i.e. 10.11.2015. The reply to the interrogatories was submitted by way of an affidavit of Mr. Manish Kumar Manav, Senior Manager of the petitioner/defendant sworn on 08.12.2015. It is stated that the trial judge had enlarged the time for such purposes and, thus, the reply affidavit in answer to the interrogatories was submitted within the period allowed. It appears from the copy of the said affidavit that answers were given to all the interrogatories except interrogatory numbers k to q, in which context objection was taken to the effect that the said interrogatories were irrelevant, unreasonable, vexatious, prolix and oppressive and, therefore, liable to be struck down.

Against this backdrop, question arose as to whether the order to answer interrogatories had been duly complied with by the petitioner/defendant or not. By the impugned order dated 08.07.2016, the Additional District Judge recorded the view that once direction had been given to the defendant to submit reply to the interrogatories it was duty bound to comply with the order and could not make excuses on one or the other ground. It is on that basis of the said view that the defendant was directed to comply with the order dated 06.10.2015 and the matter adjourned for further proceedings to 16.08.2016.

The learned counsel for the petitioner clarifies that the matter continues to rest at that stage and there has been no further order passed by the trial court. The respondent though served has failed to appear to assist.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the record, this Court finds substance in the grievance raised by the petition at hand. The law permits the party in question, i.e. the petitioner/defendant here, to raise objections on the ground that the interrogatories are scandalous, irrelevant or vexatious etc. Such objections can be taken even in the reply affidavit filed pursuant to the order whereby the interrogatories were delivered and reference for this may be made to the provision contained in Order XI Rule 6 CPC. In fact, Order XI Rule 7 CPC vests jurisdiction in the trial Judge to set aside the interrogatories if it is found that they have been presented unreasonably or vexatiously or on the ground they are prolix, unnecessary or scandalous.

In the above facts and circumstances, the learned trial court is directed to consider the objections raised to the above mentioned interrogatories and pass the necessary order in such regard before compelling the petitioner to answer the interrogatories in question.

The petition is disposed of with these directions.