LALINDA SHIPPING Vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the order dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs seeking the relief to deliver interrogatories to the defendant, under Order 11 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiffs filed, the suit for a declaration that they are not liable for any damages due to the collision of their ship with the Jetti of the defendant-Port and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,71, 658-44, wrongfully collected by defendants. Written statement was filed by the defendants denying their liability. The present application out of which the CRP. arises was filed seeking permission to deliver interrogatories. The defendant contested the said application. The court below held that leave cannot be granted and the party cannot be permitted to know the defence of the opponent under such an application and the pleading in this case is sufficient and no question of admission to be made by the defendant would arise at this stage and if the defendant fails to prove his claim, he will fail and hence there is no need to grant permission ought for.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the court below failed to apply its mind and see whether the interrogatories are relevant or not and it erred in thinking that the plaintiff cannot obtain admission and it must.be left for the parties to adduce evidence and the further observation of the court below that if the defendant fails to prove his claim, it is advantageous to the plaintiff, betrays the total ignorance of the legal position and consequently the order is liable to be revised.

(3.) I have gone through the interrogatories sought to be administered with the help of both the counsel. Both the counsel did agree that the very questions sought to be administered to the defendant under the leave of the court are not properly framed and some of them are irrelevant, prolex and outside the purview of Order 11 Rule 1, CPC.