CRP 321/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr MH Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Mr SC Keyal, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Also heard Mr N Choudhury, le arned counsel for the respondent No.2. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.16 of 2009, pendin g in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hailakandi, by the prese nt petition has challenged the order dated 25th June 2010, passed in the aforesa id suit rejecting the application filed by him under Order 11 Rule 1 of CPC, pra ying for the leave of that Court to deliver the interrogatories in writing for e xamination of the opposite parties. By said order dated 25th June 2010, the appl ication filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the interro gatories sought to be delivered relates to the information which can be obtained by cross-examining the defendants’ witnesses. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the ground on w hich the application seeking leave of the Court to deliver the interrogatories i n writing has been rejected cannot be sustained in law as the learned Court belo w while allowing or refusing to grant the leave, under Order 11 Rule 1 of CPC, i s required to form an opinion as to whether such interrogatories relate to any m atter in question in the suit or are scandalous, irrelevant, or not exhibited bo na fide for the purpose of suit. It has further been submitted that said applica tion was not rejected on those grounds and as such the impugned order may be set aside and the matter be remitted to the learned Court below for decision afresh . Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, supporting the impug ned order dated 25th June 2010, has submitted that as the interrogatories which were submitted by the petitioner do not relate to any matter in question in the suit, the learned Court below had rightly refused to grant leave. It has further been submitted that on the same subject matter the petitioner earlier institute d a suit, which was dismissed, against which an appeal had been preferred before this Court. Learned counsel have submitted that an application under Section 10 of CPC for stay of the suit and in alternatively for deciding the question of r es-judicata as preliminary issue, has been filed, which is yet to be disposed of . It appears from impugned order dated 25th June 2010 that the petitioner has filed an application praying for leave of the Court to deliver interrogatori es in writing for cross-examination of opposite parties, which is rejected on th e grounds stated above. Order 11 Rule 1 of CPC provides that in any suit the plaintiff or defend ant by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examina tion of the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties and such interro gatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of s uch interrogatories each of such persons is required to answer. Second proviso t o Rule 1 provides that interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in que stion in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness. Rule 6 of Order 11 provi des that any objection to answering any interrogatory on the ground that it is s candalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit, or that the matters inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage, o r on the ground of privilege or any other ground, may be taken in the affidavit in answer. Reading Rule 1 & Rule 6 of Order 11 of CPC together it is evident that t he Court my refuse to grant the leave to deliver the interrogatories in writing for examination of the opposite parties, or any one or more of such parties if s uch interrogatories do not relate to any matters in question in the suit, or sca ndalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit, or that the matters inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage, or on the ground of privilege or any other ground. The learned Court below while rejecting application filed by the petitio ner has not recorded any finding in that regard. That being the position, the impugned order dated 25th June 2010 passed by the learned Court below in Title Suit No.16/2009 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the said Court to decide afresh the application filed by the petitio ner after hearing the parties and keeping in view the requirement of Order 11 of CPC. The parties are directed to appear before learned Court below on 5th April 2011, for taking necessary order from that Court. The revision is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.