PRADIP KUMAR MAJHI Vs. ALOKE KUMAR MAJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The instant revisional application is directed against Order No. 24 dated 12.7.95 passed by the learned Munsif, Haldia at Tamluk in T.S. No. 246 of 1993. By the impugned order item Nos. 1 and 2 of the interrogatories of the petition dated 17.6.95 were allowed and the rest were disallowed as not relevant for the purpose of interrogatories. The revisionist petitioner is aggrieved by the portion of the order by which the interrogatories were disallowed. Mr. Bagchi, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist petitioners, has assailed the order firstly on the ground that, according to him, the order is of a non-speaking nature and according to him on that score the order is liable to be set aside. It appears that in the impugned order the learned Munsif has referred to the question of relevancy of interrogatory and on that consideration he has allowed certain interrogatories and he has disallowed some others. The very vital interrogatories which were disallowed, i.e., about the appearance of the name of a person in another document where his father's name appears to be different from the document in question and also from the records of right as annexed to the revisional application where the father's name appears to be Monohar Majhi. The petitioners' contention is that a document of sale transaction with regard to another land will reflect father's name as Khagendra Nath Majhi and not Monohar Majhi. As such the identity of the persons Upendra Nath Majhi and Gajendra Nath Majhi are very doubtful. There has been also contentious proposition canvassed before this court as to the user of the nomenclature in Order 11 Rule 1 which makes a reference about matters in the suit. We find the same expression is replated in the other Rules of Order 11 and particularly Mr. Bagchi has contended that Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 are to be read together in harmonious unision. A great amount of emphasis has been sought to be read on the pith and substance of the question as to what is meant by relating to matter in question in the suit.

(2.) This court from the perusal of the impugned order finds that in the impugned order there is only a mention, i.e. relevancy of the document for the purpose of interrogatories which must have its nexus with the expression namely "relates to any matter in question in the suit". This court feels that the learned Munsif by referring to relevancy of interrogatories has in his mind and he has tried to draw a nexus between relation in matter in question in the suit and which has the germane consideration for contesting and/or determination of the question of guideline. The said reference itself seems to have brought it outside the pale of mischief of non-speaking character. This court while analysing the order is at the door-step to analyse Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Order 11 bears two captions of discovery and inspection and Order 11 Rule 1 to Rule 11 deals the question relating to discover of documents and other rules relate to consequence of non-compliance of order for discovery. Therefore, Order 11 is capable of being split into two categories on a broad line of deviation from Order 11 Rule 1 to Order 11 rule 11 and from Order 11 Rule 12 upto Order 11 Rule 18 onwards. The further question which arises is as to what is the purpose of interrogatories being incorporated into the parameter known as Civil Procedure Code. This has been contended by both the parties that interrogatories does not form part of the Evidence Act but still the same has been incorporated in the Civil Procedure Code for certain purpose and object, namely, for securing admission and for speedy disposal of the suit and to arrive at a fair adjudication and to minimise the cost. These are some of the objects of interrogatories. The said interrogatories cannot but be treated as chapters which come as a prelude before unfurling the chapter of the evidence in a suit. This is a stepping stone for opening the gate of evidence so that court can have a easy access to get a glimpse about the relevant facts which are beyond the domain of controversy and some controversies may not be germane for the purpose of contentious proposition to be tried in the suit. Therefore, the court is required to fall back upon in terms of the para-materia known as Civil Procedure Code to interrogatories and which have their nexus with regard to matters in question in the suit. Therefore, the relevance of interrogatories is not similar to that of the concept of relevancy of the fact as understood under the Evidence Act. Here, the concept of relevancy stands quantitatively on a different footing from that of concept of comprehensive of relevancy of fact under the Evidence Act. The relevancy is required to be tested on touch-stone of the matters in question in the suit so that the same sub-serves only the limited object, namely, to secure admission to minimise cost to arrive at a fair adjudication and to bring about a speedy procedure for diminition of the ambit of width of the controversy. The controversy is limited within a comprehensible range if it can be admitted to be glimpse through the lens of interrogatories. Therefore, interrogatories have definite role in the para-materia of Civil Procedure Code as a supplement and has a prelude to Evidence Act before the stage of evidence which is proposed to be received at the time of trial. This being the purpose of interrogatories, the court is required to look into the varacity of the order in the light of the above notion which is made clear in this order in the light of which it is required to be comprehended.

(3.) It can be kept in view that interrogatories may be refused if it is found to be relevant and it is incriminating in nature. Here, the interrogatories is about casting of aspiration about the name of the father of the person which appears to be incriminating in nature to the person concerned and the same can be refused to be disclosed by the person concerned on the ground that it is incriminating in nature. A further reference can be made to a Calcutta decision of Jamaitrai Bishansarup v. Rai Bahadur Motilal Chamaria, reported in AIR 1960 Calcutta 536 where it has been observed that the administering of interrogatories is to be encouraged because they not infrequently bring an action to an end at an earlier stage to the advantage of all parties concerned. Interrogatories may not extend to the evidence wherewith the opposite party intends to support his case at the trial or to the contents of the opponent's brief or to the names of his witnesses or to the facts which merely support the case of the party interrogated. Interrogatories must be confined to matters which are in issue or sufficiently material at the particular stage of action of which they are sought to be delivered or to the relief claimed and as a general rule, perhaps to matters which are relevant to the facts directly in issue but under some circumstances they may extend to the facts the existence of the facts or non-existence of the facts directly in issue. Interrogatories should be confined to obtaining from the party interrogated admissions of facts which it is necessary for the party interrogating to prove in order to establish his case. Here, in this case it appears that the document on which the opposite parties have tried to base their case has been referred to where the father's name of the vendor appears to be Monohar Majhi which stands prima facie corroborated from production of records of right. Records of right have presumptive element of correctness which are required to be represented by rendition of proper evidence by the contesting opponents who want to image the credibility of the presumptive effect. Contrary to presumptive effect through interrogatories, no extraction can be attempted to be obtained by way of admission and the same will extend its frontier beyond the epithet of campus relating to any matter in question and as such this may not be allowed at the stage of interrogatories if the parties affected really feel that they have a case. They should be advised to build up their case at the time of evidence through alternative means but not through the means of interrogatories which do not lead them to gateway of evidence and they cannot have the key through the interrogatories to unlock the gate of evidence because that is to be unlocked only by the procedural esoteric of the user and application of para-materia of evidence Act and not by interrogatories as envisaged under the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, this court for the reasons as exemplified hereinbefore do not find any irregularities in the order itself for which such adequate explanation has been made and accordingly, in view of the same, the impugned order is allowed to stand. Therefore, the revisional application stands dismissed on contest. Interim order, if any, will stand vacated. Application dismissed