Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Sunetrabai Buty, the original plaintiff in a civil suit, filed an application under Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking discovery of facts by interrogatories (Exh.21). The application contained two interrogatories. The trial court rejected the application on 20th February 2018, holding that the first interrogatory had already been answered by the respondents by way of an admission, and the second interrogatory amounted to an attempt to prove the plaintiff's case through the adversaries, which was not permissible under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The petitioner's counsel argued that the second interrogatory related to a matter in question in the suit, namely the exact location of the area in possession of the respondents and its boundaries and direction, and was therefore relevant and permissible under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC. Reliance was placed on the cases of Amruta Kaluji Shejul vs. Vithal Ganpat Wadekar and Shrivallabh vs. Ibrahimkhan. The respondents' counsel supported the trial court's order. The High Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the second interrogatory was indeed relevant to the matter in question in the suit. The court noted that the trial court's reasoning that the interrogatory sought to prove the plaintiff's case through the adversary was not a valid ground for rejection under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC. The court held that the interrogatory was permissible and set aside the trial court's order, allowing the application for interrogatories. The writ petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interrogatories - Order 11 Rule 1 CPC - Discovery of Facts - The trial court rejected the plaintiff's application for interrogatories on the ground that one interrogatory was already answered and the second sought to prove the plaintiff's case through the adversary. The High Court held that the second interrogatory related to a matter in question in the suit, i.e., the exact location and boundaries of the area in possession of the respondents, and was therefore permissible under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC. The court set aside the trial court's order and allowed the interrogatory. (Paras 3-6) B) Civil Procedure - Interrogatories - Order 11 Rule 1 CPC - Relevance - The test for allowing interrogatories is whether they relate to a matter in question in the suit, not whether they may assist the interrogating party's case. The High Court relied on precedents including Amruta Kaluji Shejul vs. Vithal Ganpat Wadekar and Shrivallabh vs. Ibrahimkhan to hold that interrogatories seeking admissions on relevant facts are permissible. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application for interrogatories under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC seeking details of the exact location and boundaries of the property in possession of the respondents is permissible or amounts to an attempt to prove the plaintiff's case through the adversary.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the trial court's order dated 20th February 2018, and allowed the application for interrogatories. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interrogatories under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC are permissible if they relate to matters in question in the suit
- even if they may assist the interrogating party's case
- the test is relevance to the issues
- not whether the interrogatory seeks admission from the opponent.
