IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 36228 OF 2009(O) ---------------------------------------- OS.19/1993 OF III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. PRABHULLACHANDRAN, S/O.BHARATHAN PILLAI, AGED 52 YEARS, ACHANVEEDU, EDAPPALLY VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, COCHIN-682 024. 2. KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O.BHARATHAN PILLAI, AGED 48 YEARS, MERCHANT, S.R.M.ROAD, RESIDING AT ACHANVEEDU, EDAPPALLY VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, COCHIN-682 024. 3. JAYASANKAR, S/O.BHARATHAN PILLAI, AGED 44 YEARS, ACHANVEEDU, EDAPPALLY VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, COCHIN-682 024. 4. MRS.DROWPATHI AMMA, W/O.BHARATHAN PILLAI, AGED 75 YEARS, BHARATH BHAVAN, EDAPPALLY NORTH VILLAGE, EDAPPALLY P.O., COCHIN-682 024. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. MRS.MARYKUTTY BABU, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.ADV.BABU THOMAS, ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT C.C.NO.XLIV/56, S.R.M ROAD, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, COCHIN-17. 2. MR.DENNING K.BABU, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ADV.BABU THOMAS, KARINGOZHAKAL HOUSE, C.C.NO.XLV/56, S.R.M.ROAD, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, COCHIN-17. ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF INTERROGATORIES IN I.A. NO.9040 OF 2008 DATED 22.7.2009. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 14.09.2009 IN ANSWER TO EXT.P1 INTERROGATORIES. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.6915 OF 2009 DATED 1.10.2009. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.6916 OF 2009 DATED 1.10.2009. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31.10.2009 IN EXHIBIT P3. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.36228 of 2009 ==================================== Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Defendants in O.S. No.19 of 1993 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Ernakulam are the petitioners before me challenging Ext.P5, order issued under Order XI Rule 11 of the Code Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). There was an order passed by the court below directing petitioners to answer the interrogatories served on them. Pursuant to that order petitioners filed Ext.P2, affidavit, according to them answering the interrogatories based on the materials in their custody. Respondents thought that Ext.P2, affidavit does not properly and specifically answer the interrogatories and that answers are vague. Hence they filed I.A.No.6915 of 2009 to direct petitioners to give specific answers to the interrogatories. Learned Sub Judge passed Ext.P5, order. Grievance of petitioners is that information they had within their knowledge and control has been given as per Ext.P2, affidavit but in spite of that, petitioners are directed to give further answers. It is also stated by learned counsel that Ext.P5, order does not show what further particulars petitioners are required to answer. W.P(C) No.36228 of 2009 -: 2 :- Learned counsel for respondents contended that a reading of interrogatories as well as the answers given by petitioners in the affidavit would show that they have not given specific answers. 2. I have gone through Exts.P1 and P2, interrogatories and affidavit. It is seen that petitioners have given some answers though in respect of certain other matters they answered that they are not in possession of sufficient materials at present. The order under challenge does not say that in respect of what matters further particulars are required to be answered by the petitioners. In that view of the matter the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is allowed. Exhibit P5, order on I.A. No.6915 of 2009 is set aside. I.A. No.6915 of 2009 is remitted to the court of learned Third Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam. Learned Sub Judge shall pass appropriate orders making it clear on what all matters petitioners are required to furnish further details. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv