(1.) The plaintiff, who filed a suit for the recovery of money from a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of transport service, delivered interrogatories for the discovery of facts related to the suit when the defendants denied the plaint claim. Alleging that certain defendants did not fully answer the specific questions put to them while answering the interrogatories through Ext. P4 affidavit, the plaintiff further filed Ext.P12 application under Order XI Rule 11 read with Order XIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for viva voce examination of the defendants.
(2.) The Sub Court dismissed the said application as per Ext.P13 order by finding that the plaintiff did not specifically state to which question the answers are incomplete or contradictory. The plaintiff challenges the said order by preferring the present original petition.
(3.) The petitioner contends that as he has no documentary evidence to prove the plaint claim, it is highly necessary to get proper and precise answers to the interrogatories originally submitted and thus viva voce examination of the respondents is unavoidable. The respondents contend that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the petitioner has no justification for filing the above-said application.