UTKAL MILLING INDUSTRIES Vs. ANAND KUMAR CHHAGANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the petitioner in this Civil Revision against an order refusing leave to him by the trial court to serve interrogatories on the defendant for his answer. In spite of valid service of notice the defendant opposite party has not appeared in this case.

(2.) PLAINTIFF 's suit is one for recovery of Rs. 2,106/ - as damages. Defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff. After the issues were settled, the plaintiff applied to the court under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC, for leave to deliver interrogatories in writing for examination of the defendant. The application was objected to by the defendant on various grounds except those on which objection can be raised Under Order 11 Rule 6 CPC. In other words, no challenge was made that the interrogatories sought to be answered are either scandalous or irrelevant or do not exhibit bona fides for the purpose of the suit, or that the mattes inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage. The trial court was required under Rule 2 of Order 11 Code of Civil Procedure to consider whether it would be necessary for disposing the suit fairly for saving costs on the short ground that the answers to the interrogatories are found in the written statement and no useful purpose would be served. Reading the entire Order 11, it cannot be said that availability of answer in the written statement would be a ground to refuse leave for service of the interrogatories in Mahesh Prasad Bharat v. Messers. Rao and Sons and Ors., (1964) 6 OJD 53, this Court held that the answer in the written statement would not justify the refusal. It was observed:

(3.) THE purpose of interrogatory has been well reflected in the decision of the English Court in Attorney General v. Gaskil, (1882) 20 Ch.D. 519, where Cotton, LJ. observed,