Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.60/2006, sought a declaration that a judgment and decree dated 5-11-2003 in Special Civil Suit No.325/1994 was null and void as having been obtained by fraud. The suit property was allegedly agreed to be sold by respondent No.1 to the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that a document dated 3-2-1992 was shown to have been executed by respondent No.1 by obtaining the petitioner's acknowledgment of receiving Rs.63,000 as consideration for the plot. On the basis of another document dated 10-8-1992, respondent No.1 had filed the earlier suit. The petitioner filed an application under Order 11 Rule 4 CPC seeking interrogatories from the respondents. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the interrogatories sought to elicit the defendants' evidence and were not permissible at that stage. The High Court held that the trial court's approach was erroneous. The court observed that interrogatories are permissible if they are relevant to the issues and not oppressive, even if they touch upon the opponent's case. The court also noted that there is no bar on filing interrogatories at any stage of the suit. The impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to consider the application afresh on its merits, after giving the respondents an opportunity to file objections. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interrogatories - Order 11 Rule 4 CPC - Relevance and Oppression - The court held that interrogatories are permissible if they are relevant to the issues in the suit and are not oppressive, even if they touch upon the opponent's case. The trial court erred in rejecting the application solely on the ground that the interrogatories sought to elicit the defendant's evidence. (Paras 5-8) B) Civil Procedure - Interrogatories - Stage of Proceedings - Order 11 Rule 4 CPC - The court clarified that there is no bar on filing interrogatories at any stage of the suit, and the trial court must consider the application on its merits without being influenced by the stage of the proceedings. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaintiff's application for interrogatories under Order 11 Rule 4 CPC on the ground that the interrogatories sought to elicit the defendant's evidence and were not permissible at that stage.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25-7-2013 passed below Exhibit-57 in Regular Civil Suit No.559/2012 is set aside. The trial court is directed to consider the application for interrogatories afresh on its own merits, after giving the respondents an opportunity to file their objections. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interrogatories under Order 11 Rule 4 CPC are permissible if relevant to the issues and not oppressive
- even if they touch upon the opponent's case
- the court must consider the nature of the suit and the stage of proceedings.
