P. S. RAJAN Vs. K. P. JOHN KATTARUKUDIYEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 1 to 4 in O.S. No. 152 of 1998 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Perurnbavoor arc the revision petitioners. They filed an application under O.11 R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code for short) calling upon the 5th defendant who is the respondent in this Civil Revision Petition to answer certain interrogatories. The learned Munsiff dismissed the application on the sole ground that the defendants are not entitled to file an application under O.11 R.1 of the Code against a codefendant. That order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has argued that the view taken by the Munsiff that the defendant cannot file an application under O.11 R.1 of the Code against a codefendant is illegal. It is argued that the principle underlying O.11 R.1 is to enable a party to gather necessary information from the opposite party. It is also argued that the words used are opposite party and not plaintiff and defendant. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the view taken by the learned Munsiffs perfectly correct and the defendant is not entitled to serve an interrogatory or a codefendant.

(3.) When one of the parties to the suit requires an information regarding the material facts of the case, he is allowed to administer to his adversary the questions to be answered by the opposite party. Such questions ate called interrogatories. The main object of interrogatory is to save expenses by enabling a party to obtain from his opponents information as to material facts. A party is entitled to interrogate his opponent with a view to ascertain the case he has to defend. O.11 R.1 of the CPC reads as follows: