CR No.47 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.47 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.2.2011 Jagdish Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Amar Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Rajan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.CL Katyal, Advocate for the respondent(s) *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 14.12.2009 (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Malout, vide which permission has been granted to plaintiff-respondent No.1 to deliver the interrogatories for examination of defendant No.9- petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial court. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that application to answer the interrogatories has not been filed by respondents-plaintiff in accordance with Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') and that trial court vide impugned CR No.47 of 2010 (O&M) 2 order dated 14.12.2009 has directed the petitioner to answer the interrogatories without passing any speaking order in terms of Order XI Rule 2 of the Code. It is pertinent to reproduce Order XI Rules 1 and 2 of the Code:- “1.Discovery by interrogatories.- In any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of the court may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties, and such interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of such persons is required to answer; Provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same party without an order for that purpose: Provided also that interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness. 2. Particular interrogatories to be submitted.-On an application for leave to deliver interrogatories, the particular interrogatories proposed to be delivered shall be submitted to the Court and that Court shall decide within seven days from the day of filing of the said application. In deciding upon such application, the Court CR No.47 of 2010 (O&M) 3 shall take into account any offer, which may be made by the party sought to be interrogated to deliver particulars, or to make admissible, or to produce documents relating to the matters in question, or any of them, and leave shall be given as to such only of the interrogatories submitted as the Court shall consider necessary either for disposing fairly or for saving costs. A careful perusal of this provision shows that interrogatories, which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit, shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross- examination of a witness. Further as per Rule 2 of the Code, the Court shall grant leave to answer only such of the interrogatories, as the court shall consider necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in case Raj Narain vs. Smt.Indira Nehru Gandhi and others 1972 AIR (SC) 1302 wherein it has been observed as under: “27. Questions that may be relevant during cross- examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. The only questions that are relevant as interrogatories are those relating to “ any matters in question”. The interrogatories served must have reasonably close connection with “matter in question.” Viewed thus, interrogatories 1 to 18 as well as 31 must be held to be irrelevant.” CR No.47 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Hence, in view of legal proposition, learned trial court was required to consider the interrogatories submitted by the respondents- plaintiff and then should have passed a speaking order for answering only those interrogatories, which are necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs. However, the impugned order has been passed by learned trial Court directing the petitioner to reply interrogatories by simply mentioning that same are necessary for disposal of the case in hand without specifying as to how the same are necessary for disposal of the case. Hence, in view of these facts, the impugned order is set aside. The trial Court is directed to decide the application for answering the interrogatories filed on behalf of the respondents after passing a speaking order in terms of Order XI of the Code. Disposed of accordingly. February 17, 2011 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE