IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 22575 OF 2010(O) ----------------------------------------- OS.494/2009 OF I ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VIJAYALEKSHMI AMMA, D/O.SARASAMMA, AMITHA BHAVAN, KUNNIL, THEKKUMBHAGOM MURI, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, RESMI, KUNNIL, THEKKUMBHAGOM MURI, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 007. 2. SANKARAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, RESMI, KUNNIL, THEKKUMBHAGOM MURI, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 007. 3. SAJESH, S/O.SANKARAN NAIR, RESMI, KUNNIL, THEKKUMBHAGOM MURI, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 007. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.22575 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 20th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner sued respondents for a decree for prohibitory injunction against trespass into and commission of waste in the suit property claiming that she is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Suit was resisted by the respondents. While so petitioner filed Ext.P4, application (I.A.No.2257 of 2009) for leave to serve interrogatories to respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Respondents opposed the application stating that interrogatories are irrelevant, scandalous and not bona fide. Learned Munsiff dismissed the application as per Ext.P6, order stating that answers sought to be elicited from respondent No.1 by way interrogatories can be ascertained in the examination of witnesses and that at the present stage interrogatories sought are irrelevant and even if the same are relevant it can be considered at a later stage on filing proper application. 2. I have gone through the interrogatories and find that much of the questions related to matters which petitioner herself W.P(C) No.22575 of 2010 -: 2 :- can ascertain, as for instance; distance from the suit property to the tharwad house of respondents, the house where respondent No.2 is now residing, whether tharwad house of petitioner is near the suit property and such other matters. These aspects can be collected by evidence when the parties or witnesses are in the box. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am not inclined to think that interrogatories sought to be answered are essential for further progress of the suit. Learned Munsiff has observed that if at a later stage such answers are necessary it is open to the petitioner to file appropriate application. As such there is no reason to interfere with the order challenge. Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv