Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vikas @ Vicky Banwarilal Saraf, challenged an order passed by the trial court on an application filed by the respondent, Megha Vikas @ Vicky Saraf, under Order XI Rule 1 read with Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The respondent was the original plaintiff in a maintenance proceeding under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1955. She sought discovery by interrogatories from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply by affidavit providing information within his knowledge. The trial court, by the impugned order, held that the petitioner had not given correct answers and issued further directions for furnishing information. The petitioner argued that the reply disclosed all necessary information and that no exception was taken by the respondent. The respondent contended that information about the business of the petitioner's family members was not given. The High Court examined the scheme of Order XI of the CPC, noting that interrogatories must be answered by affidavit, and if any answer is insufficient, the interrogating party must apply to the court under Order XI Rules 10 or 11. The court held that the trial court could not suo motu determine insufficiency of answers without any grievance from the respondent. Since the respondent did not apply under Order XI Rules 10 or 11, the trial court's order was without jurisdiction. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interrogatories - Suo Motu Determination of Insufficiency - Order XI Rules 1, 10, 11, 12 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The trial court cannot on its own determine that answers to interrogatories are insufficient and issue further directions unless the interrogating party applies under Order XI Rules 10 or 11 complaining of omission or insufficiency - Held that the court's power under Order XI is triggered only upon application by the party interrogating, and not suo motu (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court could suo motu hold that answers to interrogatories were insufficient and issue further directions without any application by the interrogating party under Order XI Rules 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Impugned order dated 14 December 2015 quashed. Trial court directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interrogatories under Order XI CPC must be answered by affidavit
- Court cannot suo motu determine insufficiency of answers without application by interrogating party
- Order XI Rules 10 and 11 CPC require party to apply for further answers
