AMMU AMMAL Vs. VENKITADRI IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In proceedings in execution the judgment debtor claimed protection of the provisions of Ordinance.9 of 1977. Thereupon the decree holder served; certain interrogatories on the judgment debtor. Overruling the objection of the judgment debtor that no interrogatory could be served in execution proceedings on the opposite party, that court directed the judgment debtor to answer the interrogatories. The judgment debtor has come up in revision. The only point that arises for consideration is as to whether interrogatory could be served in execution proceedings and whether the opposite party on whom interrogatories are served could be directed to answer the same.

(2.) Reliance was placed on behalf of the judgment debtor, revision petitioner, on R.1 of O.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 relating to discovery by interrogatories where reference only to suit and not to execution proceedings is made. Before the lower court also the same contention was raised. That court took the view that the suit does not terminate by judgment and decree and it terminates only when the fruits of the decree are realised and the execution proceedings have come to an end. This may be one approach, but I do not propose to rest my decision on that.

(3.) S.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confers jurisdiction on the court to make such orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to (among others) the delivery and answering of interrogatories at any time either of its own motion or on the application of any party. This power is wide enough to make the court competent to direct any party to answer interrogatories at any time before the suit is decreed, and after the suit is decreed in execution proceedings. The section aforesaid appears to follow the English procedure which enables the court to order discovery in any 'cause' or 'matter' in the Supreme Court to which the rules of the Supreme Court apply. This aspect has been adverted to by our Supreme Court in M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur ( AIR 1972 SC 2379 ). It should in this connection be noticed that interrogatories are usually served on the opposite party to facilitate the proof of his own case and "administering of interrogatories is to be encouraged as it is a means of getting admissions and tends to shorten litigation". See Mulla's commentaries on the Code of Civil Procedure, Thirteenth Edition, Vol. I at page 829.