IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1939 of 2008 Date of Decision : November 26, 2008 Major Singh ....Petitioner Versus Suresh Kumar .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. A suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,40,000/- as principal amount and Rs. 75,600/- as interest thereon, besides future interest on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 4.6.2004 was filed by Suresh Kumar-respondent against Major Singh-petitioner. After his service in the suit, the petitioner filed his written statement wherein he denied the execution of any pronote/receipt by him in favour of Suresh Kumar as, according to him, he never borrowed any amount from him. Further, the alleged pronote and receipt were totally false, fabricated and fictitious documents. The respondent then filed his replication wherein he reiterated about the execution of pronote and receipt by the petitioner of having borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- from him. Simultaneously with the written statement, the petitioner had also filed application dated 22.9.2007 praying for grant of relief to deliver Civil Revision No. 1939 of 2008 -2- the interrogatories upon the respondent for his examination under Order XI Rule 1 C.P.C. The respondent opposed the said application on the ground that it had been filed for the sole purpose of delaying his well merited claim, based on pronote and receipt, besides diverting the attention of the trial Court to unnecessary matters which were not related to the situation in question. In the prayer clause of his reply, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the application of the petitioner, besides praying that, if for any reason, the trial Court was of the view that he should give reply to the interrogatories, the petitioner should first be asked as to whether he admitted the execution of the pronote and receipt and be also required to furnish bank guarantee for the suit amount. The application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 1 C.P.C. has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 28.2.2008, which has been challenged by him by filing the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prayer of the petitioner for delivery of interrogatories to the respondent was made only to save the precious time of the Court and to save the parties of unnecessary expenses as the interrogatories were relevant to the matter involved in the suit. It is also submitted that the application in question was submitted by the petitioner along with the written statement and, therefore, it could not be said that any attempt was made by the petitioner to delay the claim of the respondent. Therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the respondent be asked to reply to the interrogatories. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer Civil Revision No. 1939 of 2008 -3- made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that the interrogatories in question were not relevant to the subject matter of his suit and being pressed upon by the petitioner with the sole purpose of diverting the attention of the trial Court to unnecessary matters. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Order XI Rule 1 C.P.C. which deals with discovery by interrogatories is reproduced here-in-below :- “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 matter in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross examination of a witness.” In Jamaitrai Bishansarup v. Rai Bahadur Motilal Chamaria, AIR 1960 Cal. 536, it was held that in accordance with the general rules as to discovery, interrogatories may not extend to the Civil Revision No. 1939 of 2008 -4- evidence with which the opposite party intends to support the case at the trial or to the contents of his opponent's brief or to the names of his witnesses or to the facts which merely supported the case of the party interrogated. The interrogatories should confine to matters which are in issue or sufficiently material at the particular stage of the action at which they are sought to be delivered, or to the relief claimed, including the amount of the damages. Though, the interrogatories should be relevant to the facts directly in issue but under some circumstances they may extend to the facts the existence or non-existence of which is relevant to the existence or non-existence of the facts directly in issue. In Shamrao and another v. Motiram and others, AIR 1934 Nagpur 181, the Court held that under Order XI Rule 2, leave shall be given as to such only of the interrogatories submitted as the Court considers necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs. In Ganga Devi v. Krushna Prasad Sharma, 31 (1965) CLT. 294, the High Court of Orissa observed that the questions which were not fishing and were directly relevant to matters in issue the answers to the interrogatories would shorten the trial and might also show that the defence set up was unfounded. In Thakur Prasad v. Md. Sohayal and others, 1977 Patna 233, the Court highlighted the objective to be achieved by the interrogatories that it would save expenses and time by enabling the party to obtain from his opponent information as to facts material to the Civil Revision No. 1939 of 2008 -5- questions in dispute between them and to obtain admissions of any facts which he has to prove on any issue raised between them. An admission of the adversary would serve to maintain the case of the party administering the interrogatory or the answer might be destructive of his own case. Keeping the aforementioned principals in view, it can safely be held that the law of discovery by interrogatories should be encouraged so as to shorten the trial and also for saving costs of the parties in leading their respective evidence. Such an option available to any party could not be ruled out on the ground that these questions should be put to the opposite party at the time of recording of the evidence or that the party delivering the interrogatories has to stand on its own legs and prove his defence instead of putting burden on the shoulders of the opposite party. In the present case, while opposing the application of the petitioner for delivering the interrogatories, the respondent required the petitioner to state as to whether he admitted the execution of the pronote and receipt or not. It has already been stated by the petitioner while filing his written statement, as is quoted in the petition that, the pronote and the receipt were totally false, fabricated and fictitious documents. It may, however, be mentioned here that learned counsel for the respondent did not insist upon the requirement of furnishing of bank guarantee for the suit amount by the petitioner in the event of the respondent being asked to give reply to the interrogatories. The prayer, thus, made by the respondent in his written reply dated 23.11.2007 (Annexure P.4) shows that only a half hearted attempt was made so as to oppose the application of the petitioner seeking leave to deliver the interrogatories upon him. Learned trial Court Civil Revision No. 1939 of 2008 -6- while dismissing the application in question of the petitioner did not hold that any or all of the interrogatories were not relevant to the issue in question. The application was dismissed only on the ground that the questions posed by way of .interrogatories could be put by the petitioner to the respondent upon his appearance in the witness-box as a witness. Resultantly, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The trial Court is directed to grant necessary leave to the defendant-petitioner to deliver the interrogatories upon the plaintiff- respondent. However, before doing so, learned trial Court shall consider as to which one of the interrogatories as set up by the defendant is relevant to the issue in dispute and which one is not. Only those interrogatories be delivered upon the plaintiff which are found to be relevant to the issue in dispute. ( T.P.S. MANN ) November 26, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO