There is no such rule which restricts #interrogatories to matters which are not covered by the pleadings alone.
Google+ Facebook Twitter Email PrintFriendly Addthis

Contents

  1. 1 Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
    1. 1.1 3. There is no such rule which restricts interrogatories to matters which are not covered by the pleadings alone. The party to whom an interrogatory is sought to be served can oppose it on any of the grounds enumerated under Order XI Rule 6 of CPC. It can be objected in cases where such questions are scandalous or irrelevant, or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit, or on the ground of privilege. The use of the answers to interrogatories at the trial is as mentioned in Order XI Rule 22 of CPC. Here, no privilege has been pleaded. There is no case that these questions are scandalous. The only argument is that those questions are irrelevant.

(2015) 416 KLW 443

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

O.P.(C) No.1644 of 2014

Dated this the 24th day of July, 2015

I.A. No.830/2012 IN OS 265/2010 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA 

PETITIONER/2ND DEFENDANT

A.M.GOPALAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. SREE GOKULAM CHIT & FINANCE COMPANY (PVT) LTD. NO. 66, ARCOT ROAD, KODAMPAKKOM, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI. JAMES PHILIP. 

BY ADVOCATE SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMMOOTTIL 

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF/1ST DEFENDANT

UMASANKAR AND ANOTHER

R1 BY ADVOCATES M/s. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN & GEORGE MATHEW

J U D G M E N T 

The plaintiff in the suit before the court below has sought for the leave of the court for delivering interrogatories to the 2nd defendant, who is the petitioner herein. Ext.P3 is the said IA filed under 

Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 

The said IA was objected to by the petitioner and he has filed Ext.P4 objection. The court below, through Ext.P5 order, has allowed the IA thereby directing the petitioner to answer the interrogatories 1 to 5, within 15 days. The said order is under challenge.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. The main argument forwarded by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that matters contained in item Nos.4 and 5 of the interrogatories are quite unnecessary, as the answers sought for from the said interrogatories have been covered by the written statement filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that some of the matters noted in interrogatories 4 and 5 have been pleaded in the written statement.

3. There is no such rule which restricts interrogatories to matters which are not covered by the pleadings alone. The party to whom an interrogatory is sought to be served can oppose it on any of the grounds enumerated under Order XI Rule 6 of CPC. It can be objected in cases where such questions are scandalous or irrelevant, or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit, or on the ground of privilege. The use of the answers to interrogatories at the trial is as mentioned in Order XI Rule 22 of CPC. Here, no privilege has been pleaded. There is no case that these questions are scandalous. The only argument is that those questions are irrelevant.

4. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent, this Court do not think that those matters are irrelevant to the matters in controversy in the suit. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that those materials are irrelevant because of the fact that those matters have been pleaded in the written statement. That is not a ground coming within the meaning of Order XI Rule 6 CPC to oppose leave for delivering the interrogatories.

5. On hearing either side, and on a perusal of Ext.P5 order, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in it. This original petition is devoid of merits, and is only to be dismissed, and I do so. 

In the result, this Original Petition is dismissed. 

Head Notes

Comments